Why do people keep saying Bill Russell is of the GOATs?

[Doctor MJ]

And so, this does factor in with Russell, but not as much as people would think. I look at the "hockey stick" part of the basketball's growth as basically happening from the star of the NBA through the '60s. I see that from stat development, and I also go by how the superstars' did as they aged. There's basically no reasonable opinion that says Kareem's talent was anything but top tier by any era because we saw what he could do even in the '80s, and the same applied to Wilt in the '70s. Similarly, it's Russell's ability to dominate well into his 30s that makes it silly in my book to put him in another category.

Right, I think Russell mostly likely would be dominant defensively in any era, it's just his individual defensive impact drops significantly in the modern era due to the drastic improvements and or changes in talent/strategy/rules etc. which were still pretty much different (dare I say more tailored towards someone like Russell) in the later stages of his career. Does that mean a team couldn't produce a dominant league-leading defense with Russell at the helm nowadays and even win championships? Well, not really. We've seen a lot of teams utilize that sort of approach (most successfully the Pistons). But Big Ben was still miles away from rivaling Russell on the defensive end. The Pistons did it far more collectively than just ''Big Ben, you shut down the paint, block every shot, get 20 rebounds, and we will worry about the offense''. In fact, Boston probably did it a lot more collectively too than people give them credit, but nevermind. Ok, so Big Ben wasn't the same type of player that Russell was, but neither did guys more similar (arguably better athletes) like D-Rob or Hakeem rival Russell. At some point you just got to realize that not everyone was 3 levels below Russell in NBA history in terms of defense, but that Russell just had an amazing situation going for him in Boston at that time. A lot of it (most of it, honestly) is due to himself, sure, but a lot also isn't.

In essence, the problem here isn't merely a question of whether Russell would dominate or not. The problem is how much would he dominate relative to his own era. This isn't some slight towards Russell, I also firmly believe Wilt would be less dominant in the modern era as well, but I think his ceiling, under the right conditions, would certainly be higher than Russell's.

For the most part agree with all of this.

When you get to Wilt, my quibble would be that that Wilt's got a lot of issues that really don't have anything to do with era.

Back to Russell, those who are skeptical of him in a way they aren't with Wilt see him as someone to small to be a modern center. What I've always maintained is that the ideal size for a defensive big has always remained roughly Russell-like. Is that sufficient to stop Shaq 1-on-1? No, but no one can do that, not even Mutombo. The way to battle such a player, in the rare circumstances that you must, is with smart teamwork.

Oh, I'm skeptical of Wilt too. Not only in a context of impact but individually, Wilt was someone who feasted on people through being an athletic anomaly like few others in his time. Sure, he seemed to have little trouble even against the Russell's and Thurmond's of the era, but even then he still relied on his athleticism to get himself anywhere. He could do that today as well, it just wouldn't be enough to be AS dominant. You see someone like Howard out there, who is amongst the most physically gifted players in the league and he needs to use actual skill to have a chance of scoring, unlike Wilt who would mostly just throw a weird looking flip shot at the hoop, no biggie, I'll rebound it, throws another shot, misses, no biggie, I'll get it again, and then dunks it on someone... Like could you imagine Wilt getting blocked or stripped as much from the weak side as Howard does. No way.

What I mean is that there's no reasonable way to dispute his physical talent. Sure some exaggerate it, but Wilt would be a mega-prospect in any era. That's something people don't necessarily agree to about Russell.

Re: flip shots & rebounding. Dude, Wilt was plenty efficient in his shooting. You're imagining that entire difference between he and Howard.

I also have to note that as we stand here in 2014, it blows my mind to see people still talking about Howard as if he's a physical talent for the ages next to Wilt. I mean, c'mon, meet Anthony Davis. Howard's very much a strong talent, but he's not a super-outlier physically, and he's sure as hell not one mentally.

Re: Wilt getting stripped. Actually what's remarkable to me is just how stupid Wilt was about this. He loved to hold the ball way far away from the guy guarding him as if he were a Harlem Globetrotter toying with a hapless opponent. Guys passing by guarding other players would just pluck the ball right away from him. It's amazing anyone would play like that, and realistically, it's an area where Wilt would improve today simply because of the stats he'd be able to see and his fixation on stats.

Russell stands at the top of my GOAT list because I see him as a clear cut top tier talent, and one of a hard-to-find stripe. Think Hakeem could have been a better version of Russell? Okay, but there aren't a lot of these type of guys. Super-long, super-agile guys, with super high field intelligence? They just don't come along very often.

There weren't/aren't a lot of these type of guys but there were/are enough in the history of the game to sufficiently claim not a single one of them (no matter the shape/size/breed) came close to doing what Russell did in Boston. Here's where people stop and ponder - Was it that Russell was so much better than everyone else or did the circumstances he played under heavily influenced what was going on. Choose the more likely one.

As I've said, I'm totally on board with saying Russell wouldn't be able to do as much to opponents today as he did back then.

I think it's crucial though to recognize that there were other guys having big impact back then defensively. What shocked me when I did more detailed analysis was how far beyond Russell was than everyone else. So again, without making any claims to exactly what Russell could do today, I think you've got to look at Russell as a perfect storm type guy for doing what he was trying to do back then, and should be very skeptical when people assert that others could have done the same thing.

This, incidentally, was why I was so excited about Anthony Davis as a prospect. He's one of that rare breed,
and hence whenever we do have someone who truly surpasses Russell, he's basically going to look like Davis did. (And maybe Davis is the one to do it but regardless, it will be someone like him.) And how many guys are like him? Look at guys like Drummond and Noel. Look at how they mentally struggle. There's every reason to believe that someone shaped like Russell was with a huge brain would be huge today even if not AS huge as he was back then.

See, you're searching for the ''new Russell'' by looking at which players potentially have the best combination of traits that resembled Russell's own where in fact, no one is coming close to doing what Russell did, no matter how they look, because that is impossible today as you (hesitantly?) acknowledged in the final line of the paragraph. So how is that not a legitimate point of concern when talking about Russell relative to other players? The way he could and did impact the game from a defensive standpoint is not replicable anymore, thus giving him an advantage over a huge pool of players in NBA history. Yes, I realize Wilt,Thurmond and everyone else back then had every opportunity to do the same as Russell but didn't, but those guys represent only a fraction of NBA players. What about KG, Duncan, D-Rob, Hakeem, Ewing, Mutombo? Why don't you think those guys, based on what you've seen from them, wouldn't be able to replicate what Russell did or at least come within the vicinity if they played back then? That's not even mentioning the impact they'd be having on the offensive end as well.

Okay at this point it jus seems clear to me that you're coming at this with a whole set of assumptions. You keep talking as if I'm saying Russell would do today what he did back then...even while acknowledging that I previously that this would not be the case. I'd say you need to really step back and ask yourself what precisely I've asserted that you object to.

Re: Why wouldn't those guys do what Russell did. Well fundamentally, Russell's defense was predicated on him being extremely long and extremely quick, and knowing when to go out to challenge, when to go back, etc. He was playing a game considered high risk high reward, without making his team really feel the risk involved. Between that and what you get when you hear him talk, to me the guy just seems like a brilliant BBIQ guy.

On that last point I think Garnett is similar, but Garnett it seems pretty clearly is just not the shot blocker some other guys are. Honestly I think that he could have been much more along those lines if he'd been more confident in knowing when to go for it, but any way: I'm cool with someone making a case for Garnett to be Russell-esque, but I'm just not willing to go that far.

Hakeem and Robinson are the obvious guys to consider when we look at the physical specimens then. Duncan, Mutombo and Ewing simply weren't quick enough. You can argue that other things would have made up for that, but they wouldn't have out-Russelled Russell. Hakeem and Robinson, you can legit ask if they would.

I think Hakeem is the more tempting case because he seems to have a greater ability to absorb insight, adapt, and expand his game. It's because of this I've said that he's the lowest guy on my GOAT list who has a legit claim to be THE GOAT. But of course when I say this, other than the very peak, there are very clear reasons why he wasn't even the best player at the time. It took him quite a while before he improved to the point where you'd even think of talking about him like this, and part of that was counterproductive things with his attitude. This marks a stark contrast with Russell who realistically never had a serious issue along these lines. Russell came right in and did his thing. Yes it was simpler back then, but Russell was also someone who wasn't being taught how to play his position, he was someone telling the world the right way to play it. Coaches changed what they did around him and it worked phenomenally well.

It's always debatable how to factor in the spearhead aspect of a player's legacy. However when you're talking about it giving a longevity edge in impact due in part to that player's own intuition on how to play, to me it's a big deal, and so I haven't been able to rank Hakeem ahead of Russell based on imagining Hakeem in Russell's shoes.

Might offense have been enough to turn the comparison? Possibly, but to me what we've seen again and again is that the offensive impact of bigs tends to be overrated. There are a few exceptions, but for the most part if you want to make a great offense with a volume scoring big, you need sophisticated coaching and the right players around the big. I don't have faith that the guys you're talking about are the ones who break that mold. Yes they'd have an advantage over Russell on this front, but Russell's defensive impact was so off the charts that unless I feel a guy can really be right in that same ballpark, I have trouble talking anyone getting 12 rings instead of 11.

What about the scoring issues? Well first think on the "symmetric" aspect of the analysis that I stated before. It is beyond debate that Russell molded his game in a particular direction for maximum impact. That's why his scoring fell off like it did. Ask yourself then how well others could have done what Russell did with the kind of exponentially increasing impact he had.

Russell wasn't really a good scorer no matter how he or Boston choose to play. He just wasn't, no real point in trying to cover that up and even if the Celtics gave him more opportunities at that end of the floor in wouldn't matter in the grand scheme.

Sadly, a lot (most?) NBA greats did not have the luxury of being able to 'mold or model' their game in a certain way. That on top of already playing in a vastly more competitive era. Hakeem had to anchor the defense and then come down the floor, get position in the post and do his thing almost every single time he was on the floor. That's really, really, taxing and under-appreciated.

Russell broke the scoring record in the NCAA tournament before he came to Boston. Then, even though he wasn't the offensive focus, he soon got to a point where he scoring comparable volume to his teammates with better efficiency than most. Among those being Cousy, who is considered an all-time great for no reason other than his offense.

Again this is not to say that Russell isn't overshadowed on this from by other superstar bigs, but the bottom line is that no one would have said Russell was terrible as a scorer early on, and there's every reason to think he could have improved a lot had that been the best way for him to help his team.

Re: Most don't get to mold their game. Actually nowadays most do. The days where it was expected that you get a big to anchor both sides of the ball are mostly done. It was stupid basketball strategy.

But let's consider precisely what "molding" means from a perspective of Hakeem and Russell, because I've been sloppy about it and you I think are seeing it as some kind of zero sum game.

I think if you watch Tim Duncan in his prime what should immediately become clear is how little he has to move out there compared to the small players. He's still burning calories because he's big, but he's not flying around everywhere. To some degree this IS why bigs can be two-way players. If you watch a Wade or a Rondo when they totally cranked, you can see how they would be DPOY level guys if they would sustain that energy. But they don't. They can't. A big can simply stand there and have an effect.

Russell's molding to some extent represents a focus on practice in the sense that he could have been better about fine-tuning his shooting coordination. But much of what we're really talking about is an offense that used Russell to get it going, rather than one that was trying to feed him. He'd start the break with rebounds and blocks. And then in the half court he'd work further away from the basket as a point center, which also allowed him to be back on defense quicker. We're not, therefore, really talking about a guy who got to rest on one side of the ball. We're just talking about a guy who understood that working the post wasn't going to be his bread & butter.

This doesn't entirely negate the concern of "What if Hakeem could focus more on defense?", but when you remember that all this happened AFTER Russell had already come in and torched the league with his "I'm doing it this way" defense, it becomes pretty hard to justify the notion that Russell's defense was inherently contingent on not scoring more on offense. (And as I said, he was all about defense in college too when he was scoring plenty in the tourney.)

To me that's a big deal, and the fact that you might say he'd need to do it differently today doesn't change that. I've said before that it would be tough for me to draft Russell above LeBron for today's game, and that's a real factor certainly, but it's not everything.

That changes everything actually.

If your GOAT list is simply "Who would do best right now?", it changes everything.
That's not how I do my GOAT list though. I respect all eras as being legitimate basketball. I don't give them equal weight because I judge how high the degree of difficulty was, but if a guy today couldn't be as successful back then, that's a factor.

Additionally understand how volume scoring has fallen off considerably in perceived importance particularly for bigs. Realistically your ideal 2-way big at this point is probably scoring like 20 PPG efficiently while having mega-defensive impact. I think Russell focused on doing that probably could pretty dang close to it, all while giving us passing that would make us blush. In some ways I imagine Russell as being Marc Gasol with a hyper-agile body and without any of the reticence that has taken years for him to truly shed.

Ideally, you don't even need your big man to score and still get away with being a dominant team, but that ''ideal'' is not what most of situations will look like. Like I said, Hakeem didn't have an ideal situation in any case, he didn't have enough offensive talent on his team to offset his opposition without actually asserting himself on offense. I mean, honestly, it really depends on how a team functions. I think it's pretty irrelevant to be setting things in stone like ''the big needs to ideally do this and this and focus on that''... The big needs to do whatever the team requires him to do as long as the results show an overall improvement in overall play.

Don't set up false ideals here. The move away from bigs as volume scorers isn't about getting them to NOT score, it's about simply using them as one more option, whereas there's a traditional hold over in thinking of "Get it to the guy closest to the goal" based on basketball being a field sport where "guards" are defensive player.

(The fact that we now realize that for the most part "guards" are the best offensive players in the world, will forever remain hilarious.)

Re: Hakeem needed to score! Tough to say really. What happened with him is what naturally happened with super-talented bigs. In the end, because he continued to develop and develop, he eventually reached a point a decade into his career where it truly made sense for him to be an offensive focus...though part of that was the fact that the Rockets' spearheaded the modern strategy of using hub & spokes with perimeter guys at the 3's. Had Rudy T not been ahead of his time, Hakeem probably goes down as worse than Robinson.

Last: With the above paragraph you're probably thinking not for the first time, "Oh yea, what about Davis?" Davis might be the one who breaks the rules, and as mentioned, I'm basically poised to crown him over Russell once he gets there. It's frankly easy to imagine him doing something even more than Russell did back in Russell's era...but we can't get ahead of ourselves. We've yet to see him lead even a decent defense let alone something incredible.

Really, Davis doing more than Russell did back in his era? Defensively? Wow. No offense but I sometimes find your expectations to be rather, well, wild, for lack of a better term.

Again with the weird filter.

Obviously I'm not expecting Davis to have more defensive impact now that Russell did back then. That's not a reasonable thing to say. Start off assuming I"m saying something reasonable when you read, and you'll be amazed at how my statement makes plenty of sense.

[Doctor MJ]

I do not understand this time machine thinking when it comes to ranking players for the GOAT.

It's just idiotic sounding. There are too many variables when it comes to this magical time travel thinking. I am not gonna sit here and wonder if Bill Russell was playing today, how tall he would be or how much he would weight and etc etc etc.

Compare players based on era and their dominance of that era and their stats and accomplishments. Once you get out of that line of thinking, you not talking about basketball.

When you say "based on era" though, you're already using "time machine" thinking. That's the rub. The moment you start making adjustments for era, you're asking yourself in general how tough it was to do what he did, and to do that you're imagining what guys would do in different eras. From that point, it's simply a question of whether you do this superficially, or whether you try to go in depth. Obviously we'll never be able to do it perfectly, but that doesn't mean you're on some higher epistemological ground when you limit yourself to cursory adjustments.

[CablexDeadpool]

When you say "based on era" though, you're already using "time machine" thinking. That's the rub. The moment you start making adjustments for era, you're asking yourself in general how tough it was to do what he did, and to do that you're imagining what guys would do in different eras. From that point, it's simply a question of whether you do this superficially, or whether you try to go in depth. Obviously we'll never be able to do it perfectly, but that doesn't mean you're on some higher epistemological ground when you limit yourself to cursory adjustments.

I meant based on what they did only in their era.

I don't believe in "drop a player in this period of the NBA and think how they would do". I don't think about Lebron playing in the 80s. I don't think about Bill Russell playing in the 00's. I don't think about Shaq playing in the 70s.

I don't think that's relevant because they didn't actually play in those times.

I don't think these "If Lebron played in the 60's, he'll put up 50 10 10" or "00s were harder than 10s thus Russell Westbrook can't be better than Jason Kidd" are reasonable arguments.

Matter of fact I don't even think it's sound to rank players outside of the eras that they played in.

[JeepCSC]

Players don't fit neatly into eras. Is Shaq in the Jordan era or the Duncan one? It probably isn't even good to compare players who played the same year since they played on different teams with different needs. Unless you can have some ability to project, it probably makes no sense to compare players.

[turk3d]

When you say "based on era" though, you're already using "time machine" thinking. That's the rub. The moment you start making adjustments for era, you're asking yourself in general how tough it was to do what he did, and to do that you're imagining what guys would do in different eras. From that point, it's simply a question of whether you do this superficially, or whether you try to go in depth. Obviously we'll never be able to do it perfectly, but that doesn't mean you're on some higher epistemological ground when you limit yourself to cursory adjustments.

I meant based on what they did only in their era.

I don't believe in "drop a player in this period of the NBA and think how they would do". I don't think about Lebron playing in the 80s. I don't think about Bill Russell playing in the 00's. I don't think about Shaq playing in the 70s.

I don't think that's relevant because they didn't actually play in those times.

I don't think these "If Lebron played in the 60's, he'll put up 50 10 10" or "00s were harder than 10s thus Russell Westbrook can't be better than Jason Kidd" are reasonable arguments.

Matter of fact I don't even think it's sound to rank players outside of the eras that they played in.

It's ok I think to wonder how guys from different eras would do in similar situations. However, in terms of comparisons (in particular so-called "GOAT" threads) I think it's altogether unfair, unless you are willing to admit that it's pure speculation. What makes someone a GOAT is based on what he did in HIS era, not someone elses. And as for guys who overlap (in terms of when they played) you can definitely do a better job of comparing them to one another than say someone who played in the 60's vs someone who played in the 90s or even 2000s.

[JeepCSC]

I think my biggest issue is not those that seriously think Russell is a GOAT for whatever reason. I may disagree, I may not understand, but whatever. But the admitting Ben Wallace or Dwight Howard are probably better basketball players than him, but you know, GOAT for one and a trivia answer for the other. Someone actually gets to a point where you do compare Russell to others, find him wanting in some capacity, but then say oh well. I can't understand someone purposely putting up someone they think is an inferior player for GOAT simply because the weight of rings and legacy demand it. I think some really want these lists to be most accomplishments and ribbons collected.

[Texas Chuck]

I think my biggest issue is not those that seriously think Russell is a GOAT for whatever reason. I may disagree, I may not understand, but whatever. But the admitting Ben Wallace or Dwight Howard are probably better basketball players than him, but you know, GOAT for one and a trivia answer for the other. S.

Point to someone saying this please. I don't think you can find a single person calling Russell GOAT who believes Ben Wallace or Howard are better basketball players. Heck I don't think you can find many intelligent posters here who would never consider Russell GOAT who think those 2 guys are better players.

[Texas Chuck]

Players don't fit neatly into eras. Is Shaq in the Jordan era or the Duncan one? It probably isn't even good to compare players who played the same year since they played on different teams with different needs. Unless you can have some ability to project, it probably makes no sense to compare players.

Never mind. Ignore my last post. This proves you are simply trolling. And Chuck aint got time for that....

[JeepCSC]

I don't know what you are getting at. Albanian Damien's posts were the basis of my criticism. A couple of others mentioned comparisons where Russell might come out on the short end (for his part Turk I think dismissed it sarcastically as video game comparisons even while saying it was plausible). Trex was probably most flattering when he said Noah offensively and Garnett/Olajuwon hybrid defensively, though those aren't three players normally found to be people's GOAT.

[JeepCSC]

Players don't fit neatly into eras. Is Shaq in the Jordan era or the Duncan one? It probably isn't even good to compare players who played the same year since they played on different teams with different needs. Unless you can have some ability to project, it probably makes no sense to compare players.

Never mind. Ignore my last post. This proves you are simply trolling. And Chuck aint got time for that....

Incidentally, I was being purposely stupid with my post. Because it is stupid to only compare players in their eras because eras don't work like that. These players come in every year and play for a decade plus. There is so much overlap it would be stupid to say you will only compare a player to those in his era. Kareem played against Jordan and Wilt. There is no one era to neatly allow you to compare players, and if you are looking for one like cabledeadpool is, you will be disappointed.

[JeepCSC]

Honestly, when you try to compare basketball players, winning and rings inevitably take up about 50% of the argument if not more. I mean let's look at the most polarizing player on realGM as an example, Kevin Garnett. If you compare Russell to KG Bill is completely out classed as an individual player. In fact, like I said in another thread I think KG was easily one of the top 10 individual talents the league has seen. However, to put him top 10 would be unheard of by most. Thats because, at the end of the day the hardware drives the discussion in all basketball debates and when you have 11 Rings yelling your faces its impossible not to listen

Not that I necessarily agree with the criteria I've just learned to accept it.

Because I'm nicer than you who told me to search a couple hundred pages to find your thoughts on Mikan rather than telling me directly, I will at least pull a quote for you.

[Doctor MJ]

When you say "based on era" though, you're already using "time machine" thinking. That's the rub. The moment you start making adjustments for era, you're asking yourself in general how tough it was to do what he did, and to do that you're imagining what guys would do in different eras. From that point, it's simply a question of whether you do this superficially, or whether you try to go in depth. Obviously we'll never be able to do it perfectly, but that doesn't mean you're on some higher epistemological ground when you limit yourself to cursory adjustments.

I meant based on what they did only in their era.

I don't believe in "drop a player in this period of the NBA and think how they would do". I don't think about Lebron playing in the 80s. I don't think about Bill Russell playing in the 00's. I don't think about Shaq playing in the 70s.

I don't think that's relevant because they didn't actually play in those times.

I don't think these "If Lebron played in the 60's, he'll put up 50 10 10" or "00s were harder than 10s thus Russell Westbrook can't be better than Jason Kidd" are reasonable arguments.

Matter of fact I don't even think it's sound to rank players outside of the eras that they played in.

Okay, what I'm saying is this:

If you judge a player literally based on era dominance, then George Mikan is Top 5 all-time.

And the moment you make a GOAT list with George Mikan in your top 5 you broadcast one message:

"Ignore me."

Either you're making a list that adjusts for Mikan until he's not a serious GOAT candidate, or you're making making a list no one cares about. Therefore everyone making any list anyone wants to read is using the "time machine".

[turk3d]

I don't know what you are getting at. Albanian Damien's posts were the basis of my criticism. A couple of others mentioned comparisons where Russell might come out on the short end (for his part Turk I think dismissed it sarcastically as video game comparisons even while saying it was plausible). Trex was probably most flattering when he said Noah offensively and Garnett/Olajuwon hybrid defensively, though those aren't three players normally found to be people's GOAT.

The fact that Russell won so many rings is part of his greatness, but certainly not the whole thing (I kind of think it's a bit ironic in that MJ is acknowledged by many as THE GOAT and it's his rings that gets cited most, that and his career ppg which is 30.1, same as Wilts).

But, when you look at GOAT, you are not necessarily looking @ THE GOAT (although you could be), but (as in the case of this thread with it's weird title "of the GOATs" with a question mark "?" which gives me the impression that the OP doesn't know and is wondering why so many consider Russell in that class.

And since it's plural, presumably it means there is more than one. Based on this, I would think that it might be referring to his position" and there is no doubt in my mind that Russell was one of the greatest at HIS position, which happens to be Center.

Of course, when it comes to comparisons, it will always be somewhat subjective to the individual and because of the way statistics were kept in different times, it's becomes somewhat difficult to use them to prove a point, but the bottom line is that there are many on this board that consider Bill Russell to be one of the greatest players ever at HIS position from what I can tell, me included.

The closest I've seen to him is probably Olajuwan who was better offensively (again due to era and team needs) and probably built similarly. As far as styles go, I guess you can say Noah and Mutombo come to mind, but nowhere near the player that Russell was imo.

Guys like Ibaka and Rodman, imo should be compared to other PFs and perhaps guys like Reggie Evans. Those guys don't really play Center (at least Rodman never did to my knowledge).

And I don't believe I said anything about video games, did I?

[JeepCSC]

And I don't believe I said anything about video games, did I?

You did, though it was more in an off-hand kind of way, ie the only place where Howard's physical attributes might help him in comparison to Russell is in a virtual world. So I perhaps cheated a bit including you in the discussion, since I think you maintained Russell's mind makes him the better player regardless of whether some players were built better. It was really Albanian that I was referring too directly.

Incidentally, I don't discount the 11 titles. They are great. And a player that is the driving force to win that many is great. But there is context to be had. Forgive my college basketball roots, but several years ago I remembered looking at the Final Four runs of Wooden's UCLA teams and UNC's squads during that same period. I think both had faced the exact same number of top 10 squads in the NCAA tournament just to make the Final Four, the difference being UCLA had 11 different FF runs and UNC had 4. Regional grouping had kept UCLA's run out west much lighter than in the deeper East. On top of that, UNC had to win the ACC Tournament which featured it's own menagerie of top 10 squads. What UCLA did was unprecedented and will never be matched. But that isn't the whole story.

Russell's accomplishments are vast. He is perhaps the most accomplished player the NBA has ever seen. Whether he was the best player is where subjectivity comes in, as does how to combine bestness (however defined) with accomplishments to find one's GOAT.

[turk3d]

And I don't believe I said anything about video games, did I?

You did, though it was more in an off-hand kind of way, ie the only place where Howard's physical attributes might help him in comparison to Russell is in a virtual world. So I perhaps cheated a bit including you in the discussion, since I think you maintained Russell's mind makes him the better player regardless of whether some players were built better. It was really Albanian that I was referring too directly.

Incidentally, I don't discount the 11 titles. They are great. And a player that is the driving force to win that many is great. But there is context to be had. Forgive my college basketball roots, but several years ago I remembered looking at the Final Four runs of Wooden's UCLA teams and UNC's squads during that same period. I think both had faced the exact same number of top 10 squads in the NCAA tournament just to make the Final Four, the difference being UCLA had 11 different FF runs and UNC had 4. Regional grouping had kept UCLA's run out west much lighter than in the deeper East. On top of that, UNC had to win the ACC Tournament which featured it's own menagerie of top 10 squads. What UCLA did was unprecedented and will never be matched. But that isn't the whole story.

Russell's accomplishments are vast. He is perhaps the most accomplished player the NBA has ever seen. Whether he was the best player is where subjectivity comes in, as does how to combine bestness (however defined) with accomplishments to find one's GOAT.

You do realize that Russell won two NCAA Championships out of the 3 years he played College ball with USF before entering the NBA, in addition to leading the 1956 Olympic team to a gold as team Captain and high scorer, right? So many accomplishments, I don't know what else he could have possibly done throughout his illustrious career. I guess if he could be tranported to our era somehow he'd be able to figure out a way to do just as well. That's how highly I regard him.

I don't have any problem however with what you've said here. And I agree, context is always important when analyzing these sort of things, which many fail to do. Just looking at numbers without context loses much of it value imo.

[Texas Chuck]

The idea that Russell's only case is based on 11 rings is ludicrous btw. We are talking about a guy who has a strong argument to be the very best defensive player of all-time(even accounting for era) and rebounder(Again accounting for era) and while its completely subjective, he belongs in any conversation as far as greatest leaders go.

So even ignoring the 11 championships, he has a very strong case. Then when you consider all the players in the conversation for GOAT and realize how important winning championships is in consider all their cases, I don't understand why you want to turn it into some kind of negative.

[payton2kemp]

Today fewer teenage men play basketball than at any time in the last 60 yrs and declining population of basketball playing nations will continue. The greatest population of young men playing basketball was the late 60s to early 80s. The baby boomers who are now in their 50s and 60s were the ones who had the most competition. If you ever wondered why so many JFK and MLK high schools exist it was because they were being built all over in the 50s and 60s. Today they are closing schools and consolidating school districts.

Your racial integration is a myth. The league went from 80% white to 80% black. Its just as segregated as it was in the 50s except now its in favor of a group which is only 13% of America instead of 80%. So therefore the talent pool is 7% of 300mil instead of 40% of 150 mil. The exclusion of white america from organised basketball is not a good thing. I visited a high school last year with 1400 students of which 9 were African American. All 9 of them were on the basketball team

I know I addressed this earlier, but I did some more research that further refutes the argument above, http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/6777 ... making-nba.

If anything it is less in favor of African-Americans because of the resources needed to play the game today, "Contrary to popular perception, poverty and broken homes are underrepresented in the NBA, not overrepresented. For example, while 45 percent of black male children in the U.S. live in households earning no more than 150 percent of the poverty line ($22,050 for a family of four in 2010), just 34 percent of black athletes in the NBA grew up in that financial situation, according to Dubrow and Adams. Thirty percent of white American males come from below-average-income homes without two parents, but not one white NBA player had that background. Economics and family boost or drag an athlete, like in other professions...The NBA of our imagination -- a league that functions as a conveyor of inner-city hoop dreams -- actually did exist at one point. In the 1960s and '70s, more than 90 percent of NBA players were from urban areas. But as the game grew more popular and attracted more corporate sponsors, pro teams and colleges expanded the search for talent, and suburban (and foreign) high schools began strengthening their programs. As a result, it now takes more resources -- a lot more -- to compete at the highest level."

Given these financial barriers, which were not as pronounced in the past, you would expect that absent a policy of segregation there would have been many more black players (as a % of the total) in the past. It isn't a coincidence that the elimination of the color barrier closely coincided with a change in the racial makeup of players.

Also keep mind that this speaks to the relative decline in urban levels of participation in basketball, but suburban flight began in the 1950s, muting the impact this had on reducing overall competition.

It's not Russell's fault he faced relatively inferior competition, however, it seems difficult to argue that he faced players that were the same caliber as those today. The question is how much we discount his achievements due to these factors?

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

When you say "based on era" though, you're already using "time machine" thinking. That's the rub. The moment you start making adjustments for era, you're asking yourself in general how tough it was to do what he did, and to do that you're imagining what guys would do in different eras. From that point, it's simply a question of whether you do this superficially, or whether you try to go in depth. Obviously we'll never be able to do it perfectly, but that doesn't mean you're on some higher epistemological ground when you limit yourself to cursory adjustments.

I meant based on what they did only in their era.

I don't believe in "drop a player in this period of the NBA and think how they would do". I don't think about Lebron playing in the 80s. I don't think about Bill Russell playing in the 00's. I don't think about Shaq playing in the 70s.

I don't think that's relevant because they didn't actually play in those times.

I don't think these "If Lebron played in the 60's, he'll put up 50 10 10" or "00s were harder than 10s thus Russell Westbrook can't be better than Jason Kidd" are reasonable arguments.

Matter of fact I don't even think it's sound to rank players outside of the eras that they played in.

It's ok I think to wonder how guys from different eras would do in similar situations. However, in terms of comparisons (in particular so-called "GOAT" threads) I think it's altogether unfair, unless you are willing to admit that it's pure speculation. What makes someone a GOAT is based on what he did in HIS era, not someone elses. And as for guys who overlap (in terms of when they played) you can definitely do a better job of comparing them to one another than say someone who played in the 60's vs someone who played in the 90s or even 2000s.

Even when you try to figure out how Kevin Love will do on the Cavaliers with LeBron prior to the season starting it is speculation. "Pure speculation" sounds more like irrational uninformed speculation. Calculated intuitive speculation based apron seeing many players change their situation is just speculation. We have looked at college players and tried to guess what they would be like as pros. Some of us have looked at films of foreign players in foreign pro leagues and tried to guess how they would do in the NBA.

We are all sort of amateur Basketball scouts. A scout's job is to speculate how a player will do in a new situation.

GOAT is greatest of all time. But greatest what of all time? Greatest basketball player? Greatest set of stats? greatest dominator of his Era. Greatest winner.

I am looking more for the greatest basketball player. That to me is the player who could best help the most teams in the most eras in the most leagues win their championships or at least win more games if that player was added to the team. For what I am looking for the mental time machine / speculation has to be used.

I need to almost forget who Bill Russel is and what accomplished and look at him on film as if he was an unknown player dominating a foreign pro league of an unknown quality.

Likewise when looking at LeBron I have to speculate on whether LeBron would be beable to stop travellling if inserted into the 1960s because my GOAT is supposed to be able to most help the most teams playing by their varying rules win games. I found it necessary to give players an imaginary year to adjust to their new league and new rule interpretations.

I was just looking at the 1962 Celtics Laker championships and saw Baylor charged with an offensive foul for pushing off with minor hand contact on Russel on a shot Baylor was attempting after an offensive rebound. It was a very minor push. There is no way Baylor gets called with that offensive foul in the mid 1970s though 2010 though it is slightly possible that Baylor might be called with that foul in 2014.

Young Wilt was fast old Wilt was powerful. Watching old Russel do a decent job defending Wilt was sort of like watching Draymong Green defending Gasol and Zbo except the even in the 2014 rules Zbo is not allowed to be as physical as Shaq and Moses Malone were and Wilt back in the late 1960s definitely was not allowed to muscle Russel out of his way in the way that Shaq, and Moses Malone and Jeff Ruland would have just muscled weaker players out of their way. It is not that Wilt could not use his power; Wilt just had to use his power in a more limited way than players in later eras did.

When we add the "off all time" phrase to GOAT we are sort of requiring the use of a time machine thinking. If we said GOST list, Greatests of some time the players who dominated a weaker era might look better.

Having a look at Mikan I think he probably could have been a Jeff Ruland like player in some other Er or at least a lesser version of Jeff Ruland.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

The idea that Russell's only case is based on 11 rings is ludicrous btw. We are talking about a guy who has a strong argument to be the very best defensive player of all-time(even accounting for era) and rebounder(Again accounting for era) and while its completely subjective, he belongs in any conversation as far as greatest leaders go.

That is why I will keep on watching the old films. Is Russel a cross between, Camby, Ibaka, Rodman, Larry Nance and Magic Johnson playing in an inferior league or is Russel actually the greatest defensive player of all time?

It is not Russell's fault that his league was inferior. How inferior his league was is subjective. Would Russel block Clyde Drexler's shots or alter them so badly that they would not fall? Would Russel shut down Tim Duncan? The answer to those questions needs to be yes for Russell to be GOAT because Russell's offense was not special.

Is Russel such a winner that everybody around him elevates their game? I don't really have evidence for that. It is not as if Bailey Howell did not have a decent career before he joined the Celtics. Russel as Coach couldn't transform the Sonics.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Today fewer teenage men play basketball than at any time in the last 60 yrs and declining population of basketball playing nations will continue. The greatest population of young men playing basketball was the late 60s to early 80s. The baby boomers who are now in their 50s and 60s were the ones who had the most competition. If you ever wondered why so many JFK and MLK high schools exist it was because they were being built all over in the 50s and 60s. Today they are closing schools and consolidating school districts.

Your racial integration is a myth. The league went from 80% white to 80% black. Its just as segregated as it was in the 50s except now its in favor of a group which is only 13% of America instead of 80%. So therefore the talent pool is 7% of 300mil instead of 40% of 150 mil. The exclusion of white america from organised basketball is not a good thing. I visited a high school last year with 1400 students of which 9 were African American. All 9 of them were on the basketball team

I know I addressed this earlier, but I did some more research that further refutes the argument above, http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/6777 ... making-nba.

If anything it is less in favor of African-Americans because of the resources needed to play the game today, "Contrary to popular perception, poverty and broken homes are underrepresented in the NBA, not overrepresented. For example, while 45 percent of black male children in the U.S. live in households earning no more than 150 percent of the poverty line ($22,050 for a family of four in 2010), just 34 percent of black athletes in the NBA grew up in that financial situation, according to Dubrow and Adams. Thirty percent of white American males come from below-average-income homes without two parents, but not one white NBA player had that background. Economics and family boost or drag an athlete, like in other professions...The NBA of our imagination -- a league that functions as a conveyor of inner-city hoop dreams -- actually did exist at one point. In the 1960s and '70s, more than 90 percent of NBA players were from urban areas. But as the game grew more popular and attracted more corporate sponsors, pro teams and colleges expanded the search for talent, and suburban (and foreign) high schools began strengthening their programs. As a result, it now takes more resources -- a lot more -- to compete at the highest level."

Given these financial barriers, which were not as pronounced in the past, you would expect that absent a policy of segregation there would have been many more black players (as a % of the total) in the past. It isn't a coincidence that the elimination of the color barrier closely coincided with a change in the racial makeup of players.

Also keep mind that this speaks to the relative decline in urban levels of participation in basketball, but suburban flight began in the 1950s, muting the impact this had on reducing overall competition.

It's not Russell's fault he faced relatively inferior competition, however, it seems difficult to argue that he faced players that were the same caliber as those today. The question is how much we discount his achievements due to these factors?

To the guy being quoted within the quote: We were closing schools for a while at the end of the baby boom then the echo boom hit and we had to build schools again. Only the 1990s had a relative shortage of young men of the appropriate age to be pro ball player.

Too the general race / demographic question
When did hoop dreams really take off? Kids have always fantasized about being pro ball players but when did they start fantasizing about pro ball being a high paying career? When did basketball get on equal footing with baseball, football and boxing?

When did black kids that were not doing well in school start getting college scholarships to play basketball in large numbers?

Is it still taboo to admit that the average high quality black athlete has better foot speed and jumping ability than the average high quality white athlete?

The USA had severely reduced immigration for 45 years. Is it true or just my imagination that teenagers in the 1950s and 1960s usually had part time jobs and that now the teenagers have a harder time getting those jobs because those jobs are taken by immigrants therefore teenagers in recent years had more time for baskeball ( if they were not playing video games) .