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

[payton2kemp]

GOAT is a reference to "greatest of all-time". Maybe he is the greatest in his era, but I still don't see how anyone can say he is as good as any of the modern stars. Does anyone doubt if Shaq or Duncan would dominate back then? Michael? Kobe?

The person who brought up Kareem missed something signficant--Kareem played when the league became less monolithic and has a body of work that spans two decades.

With regard to his side on the defensive end, he had huge edge because people were throwing up so many shots close to the basket given his extra size and wingspan, http://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_ ... /citations.

"That drawing is of Anthony Davis of the New Orleans Pelicans. He is 6'9.25" with his shoes off, and his “wingspan” is 7'5.5". According to the data I analyzed in The Sports Gene, an NBA general manager who wants to increase his team’s blocked shots would be better off signing a player with an extra inch of armspan than an inch of height. (Anthony Davis is really good at blocking shots.)"

Salaries also play a part in who plays the game. While they were lower in the 80s then today, you could still make a living playing basketball by then, which wasn't the case back then.

How can we ignore the fact that he played in a segregation era? People are correct in saying you can't blame him for playing against poor competition, nonetheless that makes his poor FG% even more relevant and helps account for his relative play. He also wasn't taking jumpers--given that he got all of those boards and wasn't taking outside shots, he should have a high FG%.

As to the Rapport comment, no one said he is a scholar. That doesn't mean he can't make a valid point.

Bill Russell has done a lot for the game and faced an unfathomable amount of discrimination. I really wonder if that skews how people view him.

[Ballerhogger]

his resume and all the players he took to the hall fame with him. Won championship as player coach ,as the finals mvp named after him. He was the offensive mind for his teams. That alone probably . Is he my goat? no. but i see why people think so... He beat my lakers up

[Ballerhogger]

11× NBA champion (1957, 1959–1966, 1968–1969)
5× NBA Most Valuable Player (1958, 1961–1963, 1965)
12× NBA All-Star (1958–1969)
NBA All-Star Game MVP (1963)
3× All-NBA First Team (1959, 1963, 1965)
8× All-NBA Second Team (1958, 1960–1962, 1964, 1966–1968)
NBA All-Defensive First Team (1969)
4× NBA rebounding champion (1958–1959, 1964–1965)
NBA 50th Anniversary Team
NBA 35th Anniversary Team
NBA 25th Anniversary Team

he will make every anniversary team.

[payton2kemp]

This speaks to him dominating the era he played in. I don't think there is any question on that.

If you go back to the chart (on the racial makeup of the league), it coincides with the end of his MVP run (though it's hard to separate that from aging).

Russell was also an advocate for civil rights and he has said that the HOF was used for political purposes, http://sports.jrank.org/pages/4110/Russ ... ocate.html.

He was also maligned when he played by fans, http://www.38thnotes.com/2011/10/20/spo ... l-russell/, which I suspect plays a part in his deification, allowing people to forget how black players were treated in that era.

If segregation and low salaries didn't contribute to vastly inferior competition, why has the makeup of the league changed so markedly since both of those barriers were eliminated? Not only is their more diverse pool of players to select from (including from Europe today), but there is even more incentive for the best to play basketball because of the potential financial gain.

Assuming that he would be stronger, faster, etc. with the conditioning he would receive today is impossible to say, however, we can say that the players of today would be able to go back in time and excel.

The bottom line is that if you drafted a team (from a pool of players in every era), it seems unlikely that Russell would be the guy you put at center or power forward.

[Witzig-Okashi]

......is as bad as complaining about today's music being horrible by comparing John Coltrane and Miles Davis to Miley Cyrus and Iggy Azalea.

Mind explaining a bit?

It's not a fair comparison to use some of the best musicians in their respected genre(s) and compare two pop artists who are not representative of 'good music' in Cyrus and Azalea. There may be very well be excellent musicians in today's music, but you aren't gaining a proper assessment using some of the 'worst artists' of today's game.

Using the examples of the freakish athleticism of Westbrook and the post skills of Hakeem to judge the 60s as inferior is bad because these two players are outliers in their own eras of their highlighted abilities. You don't compare a 70s Pinto with a 2014 Corvette on its HP, since they aren't in the same class of automobiles, why should you do the same with players?

[FJS]

I respesct a lot Russell.

Sure there's a weaker league, with other rules and so. But it was the same league for all the players, and he did it, and the others didn't.
Who knows, maybe in 30 or 40 years every player in the league will dunk from FT line, when in Jordan's era only 3 or 4 players were able. Right now we have a lot of player who can score from 3 with near or more than 50% when in 80's almost anyone did it.
It won't make them better than 80's players, simply different. Jordan still would be Jordan, and his athleticism who was wonderful will be standard in say, 2030 or 2040.

Russell was a winner. He won as a coach and player... different era, but as I said, the rules were the same for everyone and he was the best at it.

[ceiling raiser]

Here are some approximated playoff ORtg/DRtg numbers adjusted for opposition faced:

How do you get DRTG without some of the crucial building blocks like TO and ORB/DRB?

I used the same method as B-R does for their regular season estimates:

http://www.sports-reference.com/blog/20 ... 1951-1973/

[Texas Chuck]

I wonder why all the guys who want to discuss race so strongly in terms of Russell always ignore the very real truth that baseball was the game of choice for most elite black athletes at the time? Obviously today that has changed and we see baseball as very under-represented by black athletes because they are more drawn to football/basketball. Same thing with soccer.

Or do you really believe that hispanics are somehow physically destined to be only good at baseball/soccer? You can't just ignore the cultural realities of the day. Yes, more blacks would have played basketball if there weren't artificial restraints on their participation, but many of the best athletes would have still gone in a different direction.


Sometimes greatness is just greatness. By the same logic that says Russell would be JAG today, well so should John Stockton or Steve Nash. Right? It's like people just ignore that there is skill involved in the game. And that defense requires more than just being big and athletic. Last I checked JaVale McGee isn't dominating anything. And he wouldn't in 1964 either.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Why are you judging by eras?

If John Stockton was in today's league he wouldn't be near Westbrook and Curry because of their elite skillset.
If Charles Barkley was in today's league he would be shunned like J-Smoove because of his shooting.
If Robert Pack had declared for the 2014 Draft he'd be a lottery pick simply because of his athleticism.

.

I am having a problem deciding if you are being sarcastic up to this point in your post.

Robert Pack would be OK in todays NBA but not a lottery pick.

I have a problem with the young fans that think every pre LeBron player was garbage. I have a problem with the old fans that think 1960s ball skill and athleticism levels were to comparable even to the late 1970s skill and athleticism levels.

I see Jerry West as nothing but a good modern ball player playing in an inferior league.

I wish I could insert Dennis Rodman and Ben Wallace and Dikembe into the 1965 NBA, give them a year to adjust to the officiating and style of the game and then see what they could do in the 1960s.

Bill Russel has lots of rings.
I am not sure that Bill Russel is a much better basketball player than Ben Wallace, Rodman and Dikembe

[ChokeFasncists]

......is as bad as complaining about today's music being horrible by comparing John Coltrane and Miles Davis to Miley Cyrus and Iggy Azalea.

Mind explaining a bit?

It's not a fair comparison to use some of the best musicians in their respected genre(s) and compare two pop artists who are not representative of 'good music' in Cyrus and Azalea. There may be very well be excellent musicians in today's music, but you aren't gaining a proper assessment using some of the 'worst artists' of today's game.

Using the examples of the freakish athleticism of Westbrook and the post skills of Hakeem to judge the 60s as inferior is bad because these two players are outliers in their own eras of their highlighted abilities. You don't compare a 70s Pinto with a 2014 Corvette on its HP, since they aren't in the same class of automobiles, why should you do the same with players?

True, I see, thx. However, it seems to me to be not all wrong. Who would be representative of 'good music' (and well known) nowadays? It's quite far from Coltrane and Davis anyways it seems?

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I wonder why all the guys who want to discuss race so strongly in terms of Russell always ignore the very real truth that baseball was the game of choice for most elite black athletes at the time?

I am going to wander off topic here.
Me, Bill Russel and race.
Bill Russel said that the Celtics were not popular in Boston because Boston was / is a racist town.
The evidence for Russel's case, the comparative popularity of Bobby Orr and the Bruins and Carl Yastrzemski and the Red Sox as compared to the Russel Dynasty Celtics. 2nd piece of evidence the popularity of the Bird Celtics. 3rd peice of evidence whatever personal experiences Russel had in Boston.

The evidence against Russel's racism theory for Boston not fully appreciating the Cetics a Dynasty due to racism: I don't think the Cowens, Havlicek Celtics were as popular as the the Bruins and Red Sox despite being led by white stars.

I had a father who had no interest in team sports. He did not through a ball with me. Friends and TV got me interested in sports. Liking the name Rico petrocelli and being shamed by my bad throwing arm at recess are my first sports memories.

Then Bobby orr, Esposito and the Bruins and street hockey took over my life. I got a UHF conveter box and mastered the fine art of adjusting the antenna and all the Bruins games were broadcast.

My earliest memory of NBA Basketball on TV was of watching players take forever to walk up to the free throw line. The NBA recognized that problem and fixed it

I did not feel that the NBA on TV was as entertaining as the NHL and not all that many Celtic games were broadcast.

I added the Patriots to my TV schedule starting in 1974. I watched the 1975 Red Sox World Series but concluded that regular season baseball is not a good fit with television.

I added the Celtics to my TV schedule in 1978-79 and very much enjoyed Cedric Maxwell. When Bird arrived I recognized that Bird was the best Celtic but I still found Nate Archibald and Maxwell to be more fun to watch than Bird even though Biird was very fun to watch.

In about 1985 I briefly met Dennis Johnson in a business context and did the usual fan gushing over the celebrity ; but thanked Dennis for the enjoyable team rather than for Dennis Johnson's good work. Then I learned what Bill Russel had to say about Boston Racism. I then worried did Dennis Johnson think I only liked the white Bird and McHale when it was really Cedric Maxwell who first attracted me to the Celtics?

Now, should I ever meet a pro athlete I won't even acknowledge knowing their work and will just leave them in peace.

I never have had a close black friend. A black guy did become my housemate. He happened to have played in the NBA. Bill Russel had been his coach. We did not talk much about basketball or race. We played chess together. He was a friend but not a close friend.

He was more afraid of the black ghetto than I was. He was not from the ghetto.

Sometimes greatness is just greatness. By the same logic that says Russell would be JAG today, well so should John Stockton or Steve Nash. Right? It's like people just ignore that there is skill involved in the game. And that defense requires more than just being big and athletic. Last I checked JaVale McGee isn't dominating anything. And he wouldn't in 1964 either.

I am not so sure that JaVale McGee wouldn't be a dominant player in 1964. I understand that McGee has superior size and athleticism right now and can not translate that into dominance. But the gap between the size and athleticism between McGee and the current NBA is not huge; while the gap between the size an athleticism between McGee and the 1964 NBA was huge. Sure Wilt and Bill Russel had size and athleticism like McGee but they dominated

It is more important to look in the 1960s NBA for 6-11 men with McGee's athleticism who were never able to start because their discipline, skills or basketball IQ were too low.

Russel was a winner. Draymond Green seems to be a winner. The question is in modern terms what could Russel do?

John Stockton played in an NBA era that is far more similar to the current era than it was to the 1960s NBA. It is not hard to see how stocton would fit in today's NBA.

Cousy had undeniable Steve Nash like skills (not shooting) but because of the inferiority of the defenses defending Cousy I can't be sure that Cousy could even make a current NBA roster. He probably could. Steve Blake can play in the NBA but Steve Blake can shoot.

My opinions about 1960s NBA ball are from film I have watched in recent years. I have not watched enough film to say for certain that some JaVale McGee type player was not coming off some team's bnch but I never noticed that player.

[SkyHookFTW]

Bill Russell is one of the all-time greats, period.

I have to laugh at some of the people who complain about the game "back in the day" and how it was so inferior. Bill Russell could absolutely play in the NBA today. Not athletic? The man, like Wilt, won a few NCAA high jump championships. Guys like Russell and Wilt won those titles before the Fosbury Flop technique was in use. If you know anything about track and field, you know what pure strength it took to high jump over 6'6" back then. Bill Russell was a strong man.

Ball handling? Back then, sure it looked slower--and was. That is probably because dribbling meant having your hand over the ball and actually dribbling the ball, not palming it or carrying it like you see today. Oh, and traveling was actually called if you traveled, not this three-step post-Jordan crap that goes on today. Guys like A.I. or Westbrook or Jordan would have been called for some ball handling transgression within the first minute of a game back then. 1960's rules made for a less fluid game.

The game then was a wee bit rougher too. Check out some of the fouling that went on.

Russell had to play against the most athletic and strongest NBA player in history at least eight times a season--Wilt Chamberlain. While Wilt beat him statistically head-to-head, Bill did hold his own against Wilt on many occasions. There is no shame in getting your butt handed to you by Wilt.

The average player of today is better than the average player back then. But the great players then were just as good as the great players today, and at the center position, better (late 60's through the 70's). Only a person with little knowledge of the game would believe otherwise.

[Rob Diaz]

There will always be a divide between pro-Russell fans and anti-Russell fans.

For most younger fans, myself included(80s baby), there is absolutely nothing impressive when watching Russell videos or looking at his numbers. I'm not saying we're correct in our assessment, but I have never watched him and been impressed by anything. Also, regardless of excuses of style of play(high post C, etc), a C that shot 43% from the field is pretty awful, too.

The Chamberlain argument is at least plausible, as he has ridiculous numbers + all the talk about his Olympic-level athleticism, but Russell's strong points for argument are his championships, which isn't impressive to modern-day fans IMO.

[Owly]

Salaries also play a part in who plays the game. While they were lower in the 80s then today, you could still make a living playing basketball by then, which wasn't the case back then.

Wow ... you don't think Bill Russell made a living (playing basketball)? He was very well paid. I don't know about where you'd find percentiles for US salaries but I dare say there weren't that many 6-digit salaries in the mid sixties.

The thing is the hyperbole is both odd in and of itself because it is misleading but also undermines a more credible point about where the salaries were prior to the start of his career (which is when you put yourself in a position to take up such a career).

Anyway a somewhat unusual thread, in that it focuses exclusively on Russell but uses arguments that put reasonably might be plausible, but aren't because they are overstated or go into falsehood (another instance of this would be the height claim) if you don't think much of the bottom half of the league's centers for most of his span up to his final MVP fine argue that, or that quotas limited his competition. But say that and have the debate (and probably frame in terms of 60s players, rather than Russell unless there's something specific to it about him) rather than, "Russell was a man playing amongst boys", "he couldn't make a living", "he couldn't play today, so he's not that good" etc

[Doctor MJ]

[








3) Less complex game. Sure, but if you read how Russell approached the game you can see his understanding dwarfs more most modern players. If we could only get Kobe Bryant and Carmelo Anthony up to what Russell understood half a century ago, they'd be much better players. That's crazy.

Yeah, just imagine if Kobe understood the game as well as Russ. He'd probably have a bunch of rings and would be widely regarded as a top ten player of all-time.

Oh. Wait.

He does and he is.

lmao.

You're a **** idiot.

So obviously I'm not responding for the benefit of this guy because he's not one who's prone to learning things, but someone more reasonable might have come and said, "Wait, what do you mean by that?"

Russell approached the game from the perspective that games are typically decided by a handful of successes and failures. Meaning that if you play solid ball the whole game and can pick a few times to turn what would be a clear success to a clear failure, you're probably doing what you need to win the game. And it turns out that this is how NBA basketball basically works. Players aren't creating something from nothing when they score baskets. The vast majority of the points Player X scored, someone else not only could have done but WOULD have done had that guy not been around. So when we talk about the true impact of players, you're almost always talking about something worth less than 10 points in a given game.

Note that of course this doesn't mean that true superstars don't exist, the very best players in the game can certainly be called 'superstars', and more often than not a guy the casual fan thinks is a superstar is indeed having superstar-level impact. But what it does mean is that what the true superstar is doing is in effect elevating a few possessions per game, and if you approach the game with that thinking it means that you don't "break the rules" of normal play simply because you're the man. You do what you can through normal teamwork and you break the rules in specific circumstances where your ability let's you do things without the normal negative consequences.

This isn't how Kobe Bryant plays. Kobe frequently shoots incredibly tough shots when he doesn't have to on offense, and on defense he's very prone to gamble for big-time steals that leave his teammates in rough shape when he fails. He is in short, trying to hit home runs all the damn time, as if nothing would happen out there if he doesn't make it happen from zero to 60, and there are a wide variety of negative consequences to this.

None of this means Kobe isn't an all-timer, but he'd have been a more successful player if he'd developed a game that was in sync with the offensive and defensive schemes that his - typically very smart - coaches designed, and made a detailed study in the areas where his skill and talent would let him break the rules in ways that have high reward but only small risk.

To some degree it's less about basketball than it is about recognizing the ramifications of working with a team of exceptionally talented people even if you are far more talented than they.

And again, Kobe still had plenty of success, but he could have had more. And while 5 rings is quite a lot, no one should be starting their analysis by counting rings. Ever. Kobe's narrative is defined by the Pau Gasol years. The Shaq 3-peat of course adds to his superficial legacy, but Shaq was the alpha on that team, and if Kobe had never won again, no one would see him as some all-time great winner. So it comes down to the Gasol years, and it has to be noted when we talk about this what a profound supporting cast that was.

First and foremost the thing everyone talked about when they talked about those Lakers at their best was their length. With Gasol, Odom, and Bynum, it was like playing against a forest out there. Then there's the matter that Gasol may very well be the best beta since Pippen. The way he came in and instantly blended in should inspire awe in everyone especially now that we've seen a superteam era where for the most part star combinations disappoint at first. The Kobe-Gasol pairing didn't for one reason: Gasol. Gasol wasn't the MVP of the duo, but had you taken basically any other sub-Kobe all-star talent in the league at the time, you don't get a fit that good, and the reason for that is that Gasol totally re-molded his game around Kobe in a way most guys can't do.

Put another way: Kobe's Finals MVPs come in years where LeBron won MVP and LeBron had a far weaker supporting cast. They are accomplishments to be sure, but they are hardly proof of Kobe's inevitable triumph. No one's triumph is inevitable, and that's why no one is above team strategy. You have to make use of your teammates if you want to have the best chance at winning, and such has never been Kobe's strong suit.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

This speaks to him dominating the era he played in. I don't think there is any question on that.

If you go back to the chart (on the racial makeup of the league), it coincides with the end of his MVP run (though it's hard to separate that from aging).

Russell was also an advocate for civil rights and he has said that the HOF was used for political purposes, http://sports.jrank.org/pages/4110/Russ ... ocate.html.

He was also maligned when he played by fans, http://www.38thnotes.com/2011/10/20/spo ... l-russell/, which I suspect plays a part in his deification, allowing people to forget how black players were treated in that era.

If segregation and low salaries didn't contribute to vastly inferior competition, why has the makeup of the league changed so markedly since both of those barriers were eliminated? Not only is their more diverse pool of players to select from (including from Europe today), but there is even more incentive for the best to play basketball because of the potential financial gain.

Assuming that he would be stronger, faster, etc. with the conditioning he would receive today is impossible to say, however, we can say that the players of today would be able to go back in time and excel.

The bottom line is that if you drafted a team (from a pool of players in every era), it seems unlikely that Russell would be the guy you put at center or power forward.

Here's the team, Arvydas Sabonis from his Blazer days, Dirk, Chris Mullin, Magic Johnson, Ray Allen, Tony Allen, and Allen Iverson. Now choose between Bill Russell and Serge Ibaka as the last member of this team.

[Doctor MJ]

There will always be a divide between pro-Russell fans and anti-Russell fans.

For most younger fans, myself included(80s baby), there is absolutely nothing impressive when watching Russell videos or looking at his numbers. I'm not saying we're correct in our assessment, but I have never watched him and been impressed by anything. Also, regardless of excuses of style of play(high post C, etc), a C that shot 43% from the field is pretty awful, too.

The Chamberlain argument is at least plausible, as he has ridiculous numbers + all the talk about his Olympic-level athleticism, but Russell's strong points for argument are his championships, which isn't impressive to modern-day fans IMO.

If you're under the impression that the strong Russell contingent on this board is based on us all being super-old, let me dispel that. Russell retired long before I was born, and the same would be true of most of us.

As you say: I'm not saying that means we're right and you're wrong, but start with the realization that when you're talking about pro-Russell GOAT people on the PC board, you're talking about people who are probably around your age who didn't used to believe this way, but with detailed analysis became convinced.

[ceiling raiser]

There will always be a divide between pro-Russell fans and anti-Russell fans.

For most younger fans, myself included(80s baby), there is absolutely nothing impressive when watching Russell videos or looking at his numbers. I'm not saying we're correct in our assessment, but I have never watched him and been impressed by anything. Also, regardless of excuses of style of play(high post C, etc), a C that shot 43% from the field is pretty awful, too.

The Chamberlain argument is at least plausible, as he has ridiculous numbers + all the talk about his Olympic-level athleticism, but Russell's strong points for argument are his championships, which isn't impressive to modern-day fans IMO.

If you're under the impression that the strong Russell contingent on this board is based on us all being super-old, let me dispel that. Russell retired long before I was born, and the same would be true of most of us.

As you say: I'm not saying that means we're right and you're wrong, but start with the realization that when you're talking about pro-Russell GOAT people on the PC board, you're talking about people who are probably around your age who didn't used to believe this way, but with detailed analysis became convinced.

Also, I think in terms of purely athleticism, Russ does pretty well for himself.

I don't know if I'd place him ahead of Wilt in that regard, though I wouldn't bat an eye if someone did (and might be inclined to agree). Maybe once this thread dies down, we can have that discussion at some point.

[JeepCSC]

So obviously I'm not responding for the benefit of this guy because he's not one who's prone to learning things, but someone more reasonable might have come and said, "Wait, what do you mean by that?"

Russell approached the game from the perspective that games are typically decided by a handful of successes and failures. Meaning that if you play solid ball the whole game and can pick a few times to turn what would be a clear success to a clear failure, you're probably doing what you need to win the game. And it turns out that this is how NBA basketball basically works. Players aren't creating something from nothing when they score baskets. The vast majority of the points Player X scored, someone else not only could have done but WOULD have done had that guy not been around. So when we talk about the true impact of players, you're almost always talking about something worth less than 10 points in a given game.

Note that of course this doesn't mean that true superstars don't exist, the very best players in the game can certainly be called 'superstars', and more often than not a guy the casual fan thinks is a superstar is indeed having superstar-level impact. But what it does mean is that what the true superstar is doing is in effect elevating a few possessions per game, and if you approach the game with that thinking it means that you don't "break the rules" of normal play simply because you're the man. You do what you can through normal teamwork and you break the rules in specific circumstances where your ability let's you do things without the normal negative consequences.

This feels like a long way to say what Charlie Sheen said so succinctly, "Winning!" Russell was an offensively-challenged self-aware athletic monster who landed in a good situation. Good for him. Simply being less selfish than Kobe puts him in the same company as Miss Piggy however.

[Warspite]

I wonder why all the guys who want to discuss race so strongly in terms of Russell always ignore the very real truth that baseball was the game of choice for most elite black athletes at the time? Obviously today that has changed and we see baseball as very under-represented by black athletes because they are more drawn to football/basketball. Same thing with soccer.

Or do you really believe that hispanics are somehow physically destined to be only good at baseball/soccer? You can't just ignore the cultural realities of the day. Yes, more blacks would have played basketball if there weren't artificial restraints on their participation, but many of the best athletes would have still gone in a different direction.


Sometimes greatness is just greatness. By the same logic that says Russell would be JAG today, well so should John Stockton or Steve Nash. Right? It's like people just ignore that there is skill involved in the game. And that defense requires more than just being big and athletic. Last I checked JaVale McGee isn't dominating anything. And he wouldn't in 1964 either.

Basketball is an urban sport and African Americans were a rural demographic. Until that changes in the 1950s the whole segregation argument is pretty weak. Do people really think that Jim Crow laws existed in the North East which is where basketball existed?

Baseball is a rural sport which explains why African Americans were so great early and over time have essentially stopped playing.

No basketball gyms in the country and no baseball diamonds in the cities.