Bill Russell: I lost track of how many championships I won

[Sam6]

No disrespect to Russel but if he played in the nba today he wouldnt have nearly as many titles, especially 8 in a row.

That's basically impossible for a modern NBA team to do.

For that reason alone teams like Shaq's LAkers, Jordans Bulls and Duncans Spurs are all far more impressive dynastys imo.

Look we can all agree that Russell would not win 8 in a row or 11 in 13 in todays NBA but how does that reason alone make those other dynasty's more impressive? Maybe their is an argument for other dynasties being as impressive, but I don't see how a 3 peat or two 3 peats in 8 years or 17 years of title contention is definitively more than what Russell's Celtics achieved.

Centers back then were 6 foot 7, nough said..........

So Russell winning 11 championships is not impressive because centers were shorter? Wilt was 7'1" and he only won 2 championships only one of which occurred during Russell's career, if the basis of your argument is that players were shorter than how did a dominant 7 foot athletic freak only win 2 championships in the same era

[number1joker]

Look we can all agree that Russell would not win 8 in a row or 11 in 13 in todays NBA but how does that reason alone make those other dynasty's more impressive? Maybe their is an argument for other dynasties being as impressive, but I don't see how a 3 peat or two 3 peats in 8 years or 17 years of title contention is definitively more than what Russell's Celtics achieved.

Centers back then were 6 foot 7, nough said..........

So Russell winning 11 championships is not impressive because centers were shorter? Wilt was 7'1" and he only won 2 championships only one of which occurred during Russell's career, if the basis of your argument is that players were shorter than how did a dominant 7 foot athletic freak only win 2 championships in the same era

I got a ton of arguements but I didnt overly want to get into it..........................................

The league had 8 teams with 2 playoff rounds and they did not play an 82 game regular season not including pre season. Winning a title back then was much easier and a lot less tiring both mentally and physically.

I'm NOT saying that what Russell did Wasn't impressive. I'm litterly just saying if he played in todays game he would not win 8 titles in a row or 11 out of 13, nobody can or will!

[number1joker]

Look we can all agree that Russell would not win 8 in a row or 11 in 13 in todays NBA but how does that reason alone make those other dynasty's more impressive? Maybe their is an argument for other dynasties being as impressive, but I don't see how a 3 peat or two 3 peats in 8 years or 17 years of title contention is definitively more than what Russell's Celtics achieved.

Centers back then were 6 foot 7, nough said..........

Yea, nothing like playing against the most dominate player ever, by far in Wilt Chamberlain 142 times, I'm sure that was easy.

Yeah thats 1 player, come up with 5 more...........

[dho4ever]

Centers back then were 6 foot 7, nough said..........

Hasheem "Useless" Thabeet is 7 Foot 3, nough said...

Ok now name some 6 foot 7 centers to have a tremendous amount of sucess in the nba.

I can come up with plenty of 7 footers.........

Im not sure if you are just purposely spewing garbage out of your butt, but try to see the point there. Let me know if you need help.

[number1joker]

Hasheem "Useless" Thabeet is 7 Foot 3, nough said...

Ok now name some 6 foot 7 centers to have a tremendous amount of sucess in the nba.

I can come up with plenty of 7 footers.........

Im not sure if you are just purposely spewing garbage out of your butt, but try to see the point there. Let me know if you need help.

beautiful. let me know if u want to actually talk nba basketball. til then im done with u

[Sam6]

Centers back then were 6 foot 7, nough said..........

So Russell winning 11 championships is not impressive because centers were shorter? Wilt was 7'1" and he only won 2 championships only one of which occurred during Russell's career, if the basis of your argument is that players were shorter than how did a dominant 7 foot athletic freak only win 2 championships in the same era

I got a ton of arguements but I didnt overly want to get into it..........................................

The league had 8 teams with 2 playoff rounds and they did not play an 82 game regular season not including pre season. Winning a title back then was much easier and a lot less tiring both mentally and physically.

I'm NOT saying that what Russell did Wasn't impressive. I'm litterly just saying if he played in todays game he would not win 8 titles in a row or 11 out of 13, nobody can or will!

Yes I agree with you that he would not be as successful today as he was then. What I disagree with is you saying is that the other dynasty teams that had a 3 peat are more impressive than Russell's 8 peat, or 11 in 13. Now if LeBron goes on to win 8 straight I think all sane people will agree that is the most absurd unmatchable accomplishment ever, better than what Russell achieved. Jordan's two 3 peats in 8 years is at least on par with Russell's 8 peat, (not as impressive when another 3 championships are added though) i think. The lakers 3 peat though was not nearly as impressive as Russell's accomplishment nor is the spurs run. Now the question would be how many titles in a row would be as impressive as Russell's 8 peat was, and I would say it would probably be a 4 or a 5 peat today, which is in play for LeBron, I'm not sure it is achievable but LeBron could be the one to do it.

[number1joker]

So Russell winning 11 championships is not impressive because centers were shorter? Wilt was 7'1" and he only won 2 championships only one of which occurred during Russell's career, if the basis of your argument is that players were shorter than how did a dominant 7 foot athletic freak only win 2 championships in the same era

I got a ton of arguements but I didnt overly want to get into it..........................................

The league had 8 teams with 2 playoff rounds and they did not play an 82 game regular season not including pre season. Winning a title back then was much easier and a lot less tiring both mentally and physically.

I'm NOT saying that what Russell did Wasn't impressive. I'm litterly just saying if he played in todays game he would not win 8 titles in a row or 11 out of 13, nobody can or will!

Yes I agree with you that he would not be as successful today as he was then. What I disagree with is you saying is that the other dynasty teams that had a 3 peat are more impressive than Russell's 8 peat, or 11 in 13. Now if LeBron goes on to win 8 straight I think all sane people will agree that is the most absurd unmatchable accomplishment ever, better than what Russell achieved. Jordan's two 3 peats in 8 years is at least on par with Russell's 8 peat, (not as impressive when another 3 championships are added though) i think. The lakers 3 peat though was not nearly as impressive as Russell's accomplishment nor is the spurs run. Now the question would be how many titles in a row would be as impressive as Russell's 8 peat was, and I would say it would probably be a 4 or a 5 peat today, which is in play for LeBron, I'm not sure it is achievable but LeBron could be the one to do it.

Fair enough. I respect your opinion


I like talking basketball with intelligent people, unlike some on here............

[GreenHat]

So Russell winning 11 championships is not impressive because centers were shorter? Wilt was 7'1" and he only won 2 championships only one of which occurred during Russell's career, if the basis of your argument is that players were shorter than how did a dominant 7 foot athletic freak only win 2 championships in the same era

I got a ton of arguements but I didnt overly want to get into it..........................................

The league had 8 teams with 2 playoff rounds and they did not play an 82 game regular season not including pre season. Winning a title back then was much easier and a lot less tiring both mentally and physically.

I'm NOT saying that what Russell did Wasn't impressive. I'm litterly just saying if he played in todays game he would not win 8 titles in a row or 11 out of 13, nobody can or will!

Yes I agree with you that he would not be as successful today as he was then. What I disagree with is you saying is that the other dynasty teams that had a 3 peat are more impressive than Russell's 8 peat, or 11 in 13. Now if LeBron goes on to win 8 straight I think all sane people will agree that is the most absurd unmatchable accomplishment ever, better than what Russell achieved. Jordan's two 3 peats in 8 years is at least on par with Russell's 8 peat, (not as impressive when another 3 championships are added though) i think. The lakers 3 peat though was not nearly as impressive as Russell's accomplishment nor is the spurs run. Now the question would be how many titles in a row would be as impressive as Russell's 8 peat was, and I would say it would probably be a 4 or a 5 peat today, which is in play for LeBron, I'm not sure it is achievable but LeBron could be the one to do it.

I have a sneaking suspicion that you are saying 4-5 would be equal because you have seen 3 done already so your mind has already anchored that number as not as impressive.

With nearly four times as many teams, a restrictive salary system and so many more playoff games even a threepeat is as impressive and 4 would be more impressive.

Back then a top team could continuously add players without really worrying about cap rules and luxury taxes. Every year they would get two top 20 picks while today top teams don't get any. There were also so many incompetent teams giving away unprotected picks and hall of fame players like candy. Today the top teams get one pick in the late 20s and have to give up players to save money. Its also very hard to get an unprotected pick in a trade anymore if you're a top team.

[DarkAzcura]

Centers back then were 6 foot 7, nough said..........

Hasheem "Useless" Thabeet is 7 Foot 3, nough said...

Ok now name some 6 foot 7 centers to have a tremendous amount of sucess in the nba.

I can come up with plenty of 7 footers.........

You do know the average height of a NBA player was only an inch shorter than today, and that's because they measured players without their shoes on.

There are plenty of articles on how the average NBA center in the 60's was 6'10". Like someone already told you. Wilt was Russell's biggest competition positional wise. That's not something you just hand wave off.

Also I find it really interesting that people believe players have evolved a lot athletically since the 60s. They have a bit, but not as much as you'd believe I think. The only thing that has truly evolved his half court sets in the offense and defense. It makes the game look much more fluid and in turn the players.

I mean we even have some evidence that players would probably translate fine even if taken in a time machine. Centers especially. I guess guards and forwards would have a tougher time because I'd say move of the NBA's evolution took place at the wing. Most centers would translate between eras just fine because the required skill set to play the position hasn't changed much.

It's rough, but we've seen Russell vs Wilt, then we saw Wilt vs Kareem, then we saw Kareem vs Hakeem, and then we saw Hakeem vs Shaq.

It all translated fine. The old guys never looked out of place in any of those matchups. Kareem and his ridiculously long career and prime is what makes me believe Wilt and Russell would translate just fine to this era even without modern day training. Kareem's the glue and "link" that holds the theory together.

[James40]

From 1958 to 1969 Russell never played less than 69 games, he averaged 75 games a year, when every arena didn't have air conditioning, and he played 45 minutes per game, but this era is tougher physically, lol.

The games best player now with cramping issues would have lucky to play 25 minutes a game back then.

[OvertimeNO]

How is fewer teams in the league less challenging? If anything it's more. Fewer teams means less watering-down of the competition. Fewer weak teams to beat up on. That Russell's Celtics consistently stood head-and-shoulders above the rest is pretty remarkable.

[Mujaki]

From 1958 to 1969 Russell never played less than 69 games, he averaged 75 games a year, when every arena didn't have air conditioning, and he played 45 minutes per game, but this era is tougher physically, lol.

The games best player now with cramping issues would have lucky to play 25 minutes a game back then.

Yeah dude. All those slow white dudes plodding up and down the court was the actual peak of human athletic perfection. The Golden era!

[Froob]

probably because he only had to win like 10 games to win a title with very little competition

Yeah beating up scrubs like Wilt Chamberlain, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, Bob Pettite, Cliff Hagan... there was no garbage teams back then. Every team in the league had hall of famers. There was no teams like todays Cavs, 76es, or Celtics.

[Sam6]

I got a ton of arguements but I didnt overly want to get into it..........................................

The league had 8 teams with 2 playoff rounds and they did not play an 82 game regular season not including pre season. Winning a title back then was much easier and a lot less tiring both mentally and physically.

I'm NOT saying that what Russell did Wasn't impressive. I'm litterly just saying if he played in todays game he would not win 8 titles in a row or 11 out of 13, nobody can or will!

Yes I agree with you that he would not be as successful today as he was then. What I disagree with is you saying is that the other dynasty teams that had a 3 peat are more impressive than Russell's 8 peat, or 11 in 13. Now if LeBron goes on to win 8 straight I think all sane people will agree that is the most absurd unmatchable accomplishment ever, better than what Russell achieved. Jordan's two 3 peats in 8 years is at least on par with Russell's 8 peat, (not as impressive when another 3 championships are added though) i think. The lakers 3 peat though was not nearly as impressive as Russell's accomplishment nor is the spurs run. Now the question would be how many titles in a row would be as impressive as Russell's 8 peat was, and I would say it would probably be a 4 or a 5 peat today, which is in play for LeBron, I'm not sure it is achievable but LeBron could be the one to do it.

I have a sneaking suspicion that you are saying 4-5 would be equal because you have seen 3 done already so your mind has already anchored that number as not as impressive.

With nearly four times as many teams, a restrictive salary system and so many more playoff games even a threepeat is as impressive and 4 would be more impressive.

Back then a top team could continuously add players without really worrying about cap rules and luxury taxes. Every year they would get two top 20 picks while today top teams don't get any. There were also so many incompetent teams giving away unprotected picks and hall of fame players like candy. Today the top teams get one pick in the late 20s and have to give up players to save money. Its also very hard to get an unprotected pick in a trade anymore if you're a top team.

If you want to look at how the Celtics were able to have a team consistently good enough to win a title don't look at how draft picks and salary worked in the 50s and 60s look at how there was a "gentleman's" agreement that no NBA team would employ more than two black players and the Celtics said F that.

In a sense that makes Russell's achievement less impressive because he was beating up on teams that limited their team to a racial quota. Then again Russell's Celtics had to deal with a level of racism that I am not sure we can fully understand.

You may have a point that i am saying 4 or 5 is the standard i have set because I have not seen it, but I think you are underestimating how insane Russell's 8 in a row 11 in 13, 2 as a player/coach is no matter, I don't think we have seen anything as impressive since then, maybe 2 3 peats in 8 years, but even that happened in not the strongest era of NBA basketball. of course I think we can all agree that comparing these era's is at best an inexact science. But what Russell did do was he became the perfect teammate, who perfectly performed the role his team needed him to play, and who only lost in the playoffs twice in his career in the playoffs, once he was injured, the other time was Wilt Chamberlain

[GreenHat]

Yes I agree with you that he would not be as successful today as he was then. What I disagree with is you saying is that the other dynasty teams that had a 3 peat are more impressive than Russell's 8 peat, or 11 in 13. Now if LeBron goes on to win 8 straight I think all sane people will agree that is the most absurd unmatchable accomplishment ever, better than what Russell achieved. Jordan's two 3 peats in 8 years is at least on par with Russell's 8 peat, (not as impressive when another 3 championships are added though) i think. The lakers 3 peat though was not nearly as impressive as Russell's accomplishment nor is the spurs run. Now the question would be how many titles in a row would be as impressive as Russell's 8 peat was, and I would say it would probably be a 4 or a 5 peat today, which is in play for LeBron, I'm not sure it is achievable but LeBron could be the one to do it.

I have a sneaking suspicion that you are saying 4-5 would be equal because you have seen 3 done already so your mind has already anchored that number as not as impressive.

With nearly four times as many teams, a restrictive salary system and so many more playoff games even a threepeat is as impressive and 4 would be more impressive.

Back then a top team could continuously add players without really worrying about cap rules and luxury taxes. Every year they would get two top 20 picks while today top teams don't get any. There were also so many incompetent teams giving away unprotected picks and hall of fame players like candy. Today the top teams get one pick in the late 20s and have to give up players to save money. Its also very hard to get an unprotected pick in a trade anymore if you're a top team.

If you want to look at how the Celtics were able to have a team consistently good enough to win a title don't look at how draft picks and salary worked in the 50s and 60s look at how there was a "gentleman's" agreement that no NBA team would employ more than two black players and the Celtics said F that.

In a sense that makes Russell's achievement less impressive because he was beating up on teams that limited their team to a racial quota. Then again Russell's Celtics had to deal with a level of racism that I am not sure we can fully understand.

You may have a point that i am saying 4 or 5 is the standard i have set because I have not seen it, but I think you are underestimating how insane Russell's 8 in a row 11 in 13, 2 as a player/coach is no matter, I don't think we have seen anything as impressive since then, maybe 2 3 peats in 8 years, but even that happened in not the strongest era of NBA basketball. of course I think we can all agree that comparing these era's is at best an inexact science. But what Russell did do was he became the perfect teammate, who perfectly performed the role his team needed him to play, and who only lost in the playoffs twice in his career in the playoffs, once he was injured, the other time was Wilt Chamberlain

I wasn't aware of that agreement and yes if true that further diminishes the achievement in my eyes.

I think you are underrating the effect of so little teams on the draft. For example the Celtics had the first pick in the 56 draft and drafted a hall of famer, then traded for the #3 pick and got another hall of famer and then used their second round pick on a third hall of fame player because that second round pick was still #9 overall. That just wouldn't be possible with 30 teams.

With those three players they improve a lot and win the title so they get the last pick in the first round. But again there are only 8 teams so the last pick in the first round is still #8 so they get another lottery pick and add another hall of famer.

Think about how good the Spurs would have been if they were guaranteed a top 8 pick every year. Its much easier to keep a dynasty going with a free lotto pick every year and a second pick at #16 at worst.

Not to mention all those guys would be coming up for extension at the same time and some would have to be traded away to mitigate luxury tax penalties.

Agreed it is of course inexact. And I don't believe I am underestimating it. I mean you are saying 4 in a row and I am saying 3 so we really aren't that far off anyway lol.

I find it thoroughly impressive but I just find a couple of other runs more impressive.

[BarneyGumble]

Alzheimer's manifests itself at about Russell's age.

[FerreroRocherrr]

He also forgot that he had a gun in his suitcase

[Sam6]

I have a sneaking suspicion that you are saying 4-5 would be equal because you have seen 3 done already so your mind has already anchored that number as not as impressive.

With nearly four times as many teams, a restrictive salary system and so many more playoff games even a threepeat is as impressive and 4 would be more impressive.

Back then a top team could continuously add players without really worrying about cap rules and luxury taxes. Every year they would get two top 20 picks while today top teams don't get any. There were also so many incompetent teams giving away unprotected picks and hall of fame players like candy. Today the top teams get one pick in the late 20s and have to give up players to save money. Its also very hard to get an unprotected pick in a trade anymore if you're a top team.

If you want to look at how the Celtics were able to have a team consistently good enough to win a title don't look at how draft picks and salary worked in the 50s and 60s look at how there was a "gentleman's" agreement that no NBA team would employ more than two black players and the Celtics said F that.

In a sense that makes Russell's achievement less impressive because he was beating up on teams that limited their team to a racial quota. Then again Russell's Celtics had to deal with a level of racism that I am not sure we can fully understand.

You may have a point that i am saying 4 or 5 is the standard i have set because I have not seen it, but I think you are underestimating how insane Russell's 8 in a row 11 in 13, 2 as a player/coach is no matter, I don't think we have seen anything as impressive since then, maybe 2 3 peats in 8 years, but even that happened in not the strongest era of NBA basketball. of course I think we can all agree that comparing these era's is at best an inexact science. But what Russell did do was he became the perfect teammate, who perfectly performed the role his team needed him to play, and who only lost in the playoffs twice in his career in the playoffs, once he was injured, the other time was Wilt Chamberlain

I wasn't aware of that agreement and yes if true that further diminishes the achievement in my eyes.

I think you are underrating the effect of so little teams on the draft. For example the Celtics had the first pick in the 56 draft and drafted a hall of famer, then traded for the #3 pick and got another hall of famer and then used their second round pick on a third hall of fame player because that second round pick was still #9 overall. That just wouldn't be possible with 30 teams.

With those three players they improve a lot and win the title so they get the last pick in the first round. But again there are only 8 teams so the last pick in the first round is still #8 so they get another lottery pick and add another hall of famer.

Think about how good the Spurs would have been if they were guaranteed a top 8 pick every year. Its much easier to keep a dynasty going with a free lotto pick every year and a second pick at #16 at worst.

Not to mention all those guys would be coming up for extension at the same time and some would have to be traded away to mitigate luxury tax penalties.

Agreed it is of course inexact. And I don't believe I am underestimating it. I mean you are saying 4 in a row and I am saying 3 so we really aren't that far off anyway lol.

I find it thoroughly impressive but I just find a couple of other runs more impressive.

When the first round is 8 picks the 8th pick is not as valuable as the the 8th out of 30 first round picks.

[James40]

From 1958 to 1969 Russell never played less than 69 games, he averaged 75 games a year, when every arena didn't have air conditioning, and he played 45 minutes per game, but this era is tougher physically, lol.

The games best player now with cramping issues would have lucky to play 25 minutes a game back then.

Yeah dude. All those slow white dudes plodding up and down the court was the actual peak of human athletic perfection. The Golden era!

Sorry who plays that much now? Who has chartered flights? Who fought racism while playing? The athletes are better now, they have to be, the training now is 100 times better, the nutrition is 100 times better, the playing conditions are 100 times better.

Russell wasn't a great scorer and he didn't have to be, he was a great defender and rebounder, plus Russell is the games greatest winner. By far. Why that bothers anyone is beyond me. Jerry West was a slow white guy.

[KING JAMES1978]

It might seem strange but I did not know our Celtic teams won eight championships in a row until about 20 years ago when I read about it in a game program. Our focus was always on that particular season, always one year at a time. The year we played had nothing to do with the previous year or the next year. That's just the way it was.

http://www.nba.com/2014/news/06/05/bill ... or-finals/

That's my GOAT NBA player.

He is perhaps the most overrated superstar ever.
Give me a break this dude William Felton Russell the GOAT?He could won 20 rings and still wouldn't be the greatest.
MJ,KAJ,Magic,Bird,LBJ,Shaq,Wilt,Hakeem and even maybe Kobe were better players than him.He was a team player and good defender at his Era but this can't make him the Greatest in the second weakest era ever the 60's