What did Bill Russell have to do to be seen as the GOAT?

[Bel]

Bill Russell won 11 titles in 12 healthy years. Team success is the only 'true' stat we have in sports, since that is what players are supposed to play for. They don't play for individual accolades, they play for team success, and that must be accounted for. Counting or impact stats can be helpful and can also mislead, but team success never shows false positives. However, it is also easily distorted in the other direction, since you have to take into account team and opposition strength. Yet, what can you ask an elite player do, other than to win the title? This isn't something as reductionist as 'ring counting' without context. The context still favors Russell. The fact is, Russell was the only single constant on both his first and last championship teams. Jordan and Duncan can boast of carrying such very different and at times weaker teams with almost entirely different personnel (except they had the same coach and Jordan, Pippen), but only Russell can say he did carried his team with nobody else as a constant factor.

That is the philosophical question asked here: what should Russell have done differently to be seen as a near unanimous GOAT, like say Babe Ruth? It is clear from autobiographical, newspapers, and teammate/coach accounts that Russell did whatever was needed to win, no matter how it made him look. Russell is rarely ever mentioned around here, and this is generally quite a sophisticated and historically focused community. In the wider bball community he seems to be ignored or mentioned at best in passing, so far as I can tell. In the previous GOAT listing, he went a very low placing 4th (he did go 2nd in the 2011 ranking). Recency bias is invisible and its effect on perception is always underestimated among sports fans, but again, that didn't apply to Ruth, or up until recently, Pele and Maradonna in soccer.

Team Circumstances

First off, Russell did indeed start in a good position. He played for easily the best coach of the era from the start, the man he would replace at center was a kind and helpful mentor, and he joined a team that had finished 2nd in the league with the league MVP the previous year. However, they had also lost 1-2 in the first round, and traded their 3rd highest MPG player to get Russell. From this kind of comfortable position, which many greats have not started out with, a GOAT needs to perform right off the bat, and Russell won his rookie year and kept winning every healthy year.

There are other pieces of information we can use to piece together Russell's impact. Even before the Celtics, Russell won the NCAA championship twice twice despite playing for a weak school. Though not the NBA, that's the best opportunity he had to prove he could win without advantageous circumstances. College was by no means a guaranteed win for a GOAT tier player, as even the great Wilt at a top school couldn't win an NCAA championship.

Additionally, Red Auerbach clearly played an important role for Russell and the Celtics. So Russell showed that he was not reliant on Red when he won twice as player-coach. Russell is the only guy in history to win as a player coach, and he did it 2 out of 3 seasons.

Secondly, the Celtics had significant issues before and after Russell. The 56 Celtics had the MVP (Bob Cousy) and the best coach, but also went 39-33, 0.72 SRS, and lost 1-2 in the first round of the playoffs. They were a good team, but hardly the best, and they lost Macauley to get Russell. The 70 Celtics still had a prime Hondo but finished 34-48 with a -1.59 SRS and didn't make the playoffs (this is not as bad as it would be in the current era though). The only tricky part of this team analysis is that Sam Jones, the other high impact player beside Cousy and Hondo, overlapped his career almost completely with Russell.

Many people make a basic logical error when they bring up the following argument, as if it is a point against Russell: 'look at how many HOFers are on his team. He had a super team that was stacked compared to his contemporaries.' This is never an accurate way to judge impact and team strength because they are on the same team as Russell; he practices with them, he leads them, therefore he impacts their level of play. People make these same mistakes for other players like Bird, Jordan, or Duncan. You need to look at independent evidence (how they played elsewhere) to really judge teammate strength. Guys like Ramsey, Heinsohn, and K.C. Jones were great because they played next to Russell, not vice versa. Yeah, they sure look great when they are playing with Russell, but that doesn't mean they'd look like that without him, and thus cannot be used as evidence that his teams are stacked.

Cousy and Hondo we have the independent evidence to know they were great with or without Russell, especially Hondo. But their primes didn't overlap, and its hardly like Russell's competitors also didn't have multiple stars in a number of years, or that Russell couldn't win even against as strong big 3' in his last year (69).

Another team argument I've seen (such as by Wilt) is that Russell's Celtics barely squeaked through a number of their series. 4 finals series went to 7 games, as did several other playoff rounds. But the Celtics also were 10-0 in final elimination games. That's a hard record to argue with and not something you get by accident: clearly they were doing something special in their prep and culture to be so effective in elimination games. Sure, it would've been better if they closed out series sooner; how much does it really detract from them though if they always won in these final elimination games?

Era
The era complaint is tricky to substantiate. The demographics of the league did drastically shift in his career, but if you believe in the transitive property in basketball, the older eras have a lot going for them. Russell played fantastic against Wilt, who played fantastic against Kareem, who played fantastic against Hakeem, who played fantastic against Shaq, who played fantastic against Duncan, who played fantastic against Lebron (or use AD if you care about the center continuity), who played fantastic against Curry KD or whomever you think is the symbol of this era. Not all eras are equal of course, but there is remarkable continuity here in some ways.

A better 'era' objection is the low number of teams he faced: 8 when he started, 14 when he retired. Ultimately its easier to win in a 8 team league than a 30 team league. But again, what is Russell supposed to have done to prove himself superior to people who got to play against larger leagues (or vice versa)? It would be one thing if Russell won only say 8 out of his 12 healthy years, but he achieved the primary goal 11 out of 12, losing to one of the most stacked teams ever in the one loss. That's such unbelievable consistency at doing what needs to be done. There's not a whole lot of grounds for suggesting he would be below the bar set by players like Jordan (6/11) or Magic (5/12) even with more teams.

H2H vs Wilt

The most insightful quote I've ever seen on basketball is Russell saying that all stats (points?) are not equal. At first I resisted, thinking that it doesn't make any mathematical sense. Then I realized, 'wait why should I assume I'm right and Bill Russell is wrong.' Well indeed I shouldn't. What Russell meant is that points scored in intense moments or at a crucial point that take away momentum, matter way more than points scored in garbage time or in a hopeless game when the team is playing bench players. Thus the box score can lie, because you don't know how many points a player scored that game at important times. This insight is one advantage Russell had over Wilt.

Russell makes special mention in his books of how he allowed Wilt to score easy points against him when the game was out of hand for Wilt's team. He never antagonized Wilt or did anything to set him off and bring Wilt to play at his absolute peak level. The ultimate goal was for Wilt to go home happy with his individual performance, and Russell happy with the win. Wilt may have heavily outscored Russell, but can you honestly say that this meant he had more impact than Russell? That seems extremely difficult to substantiate. Their contemporaries certainly rated Russell over Wilt en mass.

Offensive Stats

The other commonly cited problem is his lackluster offensive stats (specifically shooting % and ppg). Russell scored around 20 ppg and 20 rpg in college, but in the NBA scored 15 ppg and 22 rpg. Clearly he had the ability to score more depending on the situation, but he chose not to. Russell writes that he never got to show some of his gifts, because he realized they took away from his teammates. So while he could play point very effectively for a big, doing so would take away from Cousy's game and make the Celtics less than the sum of their parts. When he realized he was hurting Cousy, Additionally, sometimes the Celtics strategy under Red Auerbach was to keep Russell back on D to utilize his otherwordly defense and provide a safety net, not run the fast break and rack up some free points. That type of impact isn't going to show up in the box score, but it is going to show up in the win column.

Another complementary point was that the Celtics were a solid offensive team and a very weak defensive one before and after Russell. So if Russell plays like a stat-hungry offensive superstar with such a roster, he is going to be hurting his teammate's output rather than enhancing it. A great player should adapt to his less capable teammates, not force them to play worse to accommodate him. And all the evidence we have suggests that Russell amplified his teammates instead of detracted from them. If winning is the ultimate goal, then amplifying your teammates' performance should be a crucial ingredient in that process. Russell's coach and teammates certainly agree with his performance here.

Early on, Russell had a top 5 fg% in the league. When Russell played in the high post later in the career, his shooting percentage naturally declined as he was further away. So he rationally shot less and passed more. The team had lost Cousy, so now Russell took over his job as the passing engine out of the high post on half court sets. It seems a lot of his passes were set up passes, not just 'hold the ball, look for an assist,' so he isn't going to get fairly credited in the stats. Perhaps this was a mistake? The team adapted well to their changing roster, but Russell looked worse, and he lost his reasonably high ts% that he had early on.

Some people have criticized Russell for longevity, as he only played 12 healthy seasons. Okay, that's true, but longevity is only an argument if another guy accomplishes equal or more in a longer timeframe. If someone accomplishes more in less time, that is not a negative. And logically, the argument becomes ludicrous. So Russell is supposed to have won exactly how many times? 13? 15? Why do all these people with great 'longevity' not have to uphold those same standards. Why don't they also have to win titles on teams against elite competition that fall apart without them at age 34 and 35, while still coaching?

Russell in Second Wind:
"Star players have an enormous responsibility beyond their statistics—the responsibility to pick their team up and carry it. You have to do this to win championships—and to be ready to do it when you’d rather be a thousand other places. You have to say and do the things that make your opponents play worse and your teammates play better. I always thought that the most important measure of how good a game I’d played was how much better I’d made my teammates play.”"

In 'Russell rules,' he argued that his best games were not the ones where he had a big box score, but where he did all these little things to make his teammates better. Since we know how difficult it has been for teams to sustain the motivation to 3 or 4 peat, it seems logical that Russell's well-attested competitive attitude and his influence on Celtics culture was critical in getting the best out of everyone year after grinding year. On the court, his goal was to make his opponents uncomfortable and remove them from their habits by doing a hundred little things that made them uncomfortable and brought them out of their habits. And that kind of thing showed in their drtg's and wins column.

I've mostly ignored talking about Russell's team defense here, since most people are familiar with that. But it is worth mentioning that Russell's Celtics have several years of being in their own category of offense or defense efficiency compared to league average. In 64, the Celtics were 14.1% better than league average defensive efficiency, an absurd number. The highest offensive efficiency that year was 4.2% by the Royals. The next best by a non-Russell team was the Duncan Spurs in 04, with a 8.9% gap.


Summary

So in summary, several common criticisms against Russell are vapid. There's more to cover of course, but this is long enough as is. He could play point center. He could score more and better, if he had the ball and played in those positions. Just because he didn't do all of that doesn't mean he couldn't. He just felt that wasn't the best way for his team to win. So then, what is Russell supposed to have done? Leave college early so he can have a longer career? Carry his team beyond age 35? Beat the 67 Sixers?

Would Russell be more prestigious if he padded his offensive stats to the detriment to his team, and they lost, but his teammates sucked so there was someone else to blame? Is it better for a player to do all the little things that don't show up on the stat sheet, like pick-setting, high-post passing, and win with vastly different teams and win, or do all the things that we can clearly quantify and lose?

All contemporary accounts of teammates and foes agree that Russell's intelligence was transcendent - way above everyone else. Not in the sense of some dumb ESPN soundbite parroting 'omg his bbiq' without proof, but a guy who saw plays, practiced techniques and angles at a completely different level than other people. This raw intelligence also comes through in his books. Would you feel confident going up to this person of incredible intelligence and saying something like 'if you were really the GOAT you'd have had better stats.' I sure wouldn't. Bill Russell back then understood basketball way better than me and almost everyone else, even with hindsight, especially since we lack footage. We know he could do more if he needed to, but he chose not to in most cases. Clearly there was a very important reason for that, and that this is validated by his success as the sole constant on the 57 and 69 championship teams that foundered after he left.

He dominated in years when he had all the talent like 64-65, and still won in years where his teams were grossly outclassed talent wise like 68 and 69. Put another way, he won when he should, and also won when he shouldn't. What was missing for him?

[HeartBreakKid]

points per game and social media

[pandrade83]

Of controllables: a bigger offensive impact &/or have better longevity. This seems nitpicky but -

1) Boston's offense was bad for nearly all of his tenure. They finished with a positive rel Ortg just once; & were -2.5 or worse 5 times.

2) West/Oscar/Wilt all played one additional season & they (imo) are clearly the next 3 best players from that era after Russell. If he had mustered 1 more quality season, it would help his GOAT case in my lens because I look at the whole career & it's hard for any year to add negative career value.


Of Russ + the other 3 elites I mentioned from that era, I've got them:

#4 - Russ
#6 - Wilt
#19 - Oscar
#20 - West

[iggymcfrack]

Become above average at offense for starters. If you play weaker competition than any other GOAT candidate (in most cases by large margins), then you better not have a gaping hole in your game if you want to be the greatest of all-time. It just make too much sense that he dominated that league because it was a weak league and not because of his immense talent when he’s so obviously flawed.

[pandrade83]

Become above average at offense for starters. If you play weaker competition than any other GOAT candidate (in most cases by large margins), then you better not have a gaping hole in your game if you want to be the greatest of all-time. It just make too much sense that he dominated that league because it was a weak league and not because of his immense talent when he’s so obviously flawed.

I view that era (guys who entered league between '55-'65) as:

Russ
Wilt
---------
Oscar
West
---------
---------
Hondo
Reed
Pettit
---------
Baylor
Thurmond (EDITED) - forgot about him


For a relatively low amount of teams that's a fairly good concentration of talent (for part of the era anyway)

[iggymcfrack]

Become above average at offense for starters. If you play weaker competition than any other GOAT candidate (in most cases by large margins), then you better not have a gaping hole in your game if you want to be the greatest of all-time. It just make too much sense that he dominated that league because it was a weak league and not because of his immense talent when he’s so obviously flawed.

I view that era (guys who entered league between '55-'65) as:

Russ
Wilt
---------
Oscar
West
---------
---------
Hondo
Reed
Pettit
---------
Baylor

For a relatively low amount of teams that's a fairly good concentration of talent (for part of the era anyway)

I think a lot of his impact is that he was one of the first players who learned how to defend like a modern, elite center. And yeah, it’s cool he was pioneering, but hat doesn’t make him better than someone who perfected the same defensive skills and was also elite on offense.

Like say Steph Curry entered the league in the early ‘80s and was like “I’m a better shooter than everyone, I’m gonna bomb it from the line as much as I want”. Since he was the only one doing it, he’d probably have the same kind of league-warping impact that Russell’s rim protection did in the ‘60s. That wouldn’t suddenly make him better than LeBron and Jordan though who were just as good offensively, but were also elite defenders. It would just mean he was in the right place at the right time.

[Colbinii]

Babe Ruth isnt close to the unanimous GOAT in baseball. Many baseball groups dont have him as the GOAT; casuals do.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

If it was Oscar to get those 11 rings through his offensive dominance he would be goat for sure.

[Texas Chuck]

Babe Ruth isnt close to the unanimous GOAT in baseball. Many baseball groups dont have him as the GOAT; casuals do.

When Babe Ruth retired he was seen as the GOAT. When Bill Russell retired he was seen as the GOAT. But both of those retirements happened a long time ago.

I agree Ruth has been surpassed, but not by very many. Russell might still be the GOAT, he certainly is one of a handful of guys with a strong case.

And for me the case is a simple one: Only Mikan has much of an argument against him for in-era impact and Russell did it much longer and in something more resembling modern NBA basketball. His in-era impact dwarfs that of everyone else. It shouldn't matter that he wasn't a great scorer--I have never understood that argument. It should never matterr where the impact comes from, just that it comes.

In fact the primary reason he isn't discussed more as GOAT is simply modern bias and scoring/offense bias or to be more specific Michael Jordan bias. Everyone just sort of decided Jordan was GOAT and so now all candidates are measured against that specific lens. Look at all the arguments used against Russell, Duncan, and Lebron--they are essentially all compared against the strengths of Mike and where they all greatly exceed Mike those criteria largely get hand-waved away.

The rings are part of the argument only in as much as his team basketball play was at such an absurd level that the rings come. Not he won a bunch of rings so he gets to be GOAT. Those who dismiss the rings do so because they don't understand that concept.

[DatAsh]

I think a lot of his impact is that he was one of the first players who learned how to defend like a modern, elite center. And yeah, it’s cool he was pioneering, but hat doesn’t make him better than someone who perfected the same defensive skills and was also elite on offense.

I guess it depends on how you evaluate players relative to era, but for me, yes, yes it does.

Is your average physics professor today a better physicist than Isaac Newton? Depending on how you account for era, you could definitely answer that question with a yes, and you wouldn’t be wrong, but other people might say no, and they wouldn’t be wrong either.

For me, Newton is the greatest physicist ever.

[penbeast0]

Become above average at offense for starters. If you play weaker competition than any other GOAT candidate (in most cases by large margins), then you better not have a gaping hole in your game if you want to be the greatest of all-time. It just make too much sense that he dominated that league because it was a weak league and not because of his immense talent when he’s so obviously flawed.

Because he was playing in a much smaller league, the talent pool for each available player was actually much TOUGHER for him than for players like Kareem (though I would say less than 21st century players) due to the massive expansion of the 70s and 80s that inflated the numbers of those eras. This was especially true for centers as there is less of a competitive advantage for a 7 footer in other sports and they are easier to recognize the potential of their size; a great 6'5 athlete may have been more drawn to baseball or football but the 7 footer almost all played basketball.

To illustrate, look at the strength of the centers he played. Every year, a third of his games would be against Wilt/Bellamy/Beaty or Wilt/Thurmond/Reed/Bellamy. Compare to someone like Shaq who played in this century but whose competition was weaker. Only the Hakeem/Drob/Ewing era compares in terms of both elite center competition and depth.

[70sFan]

I think a lot of his impact is that he was one of the first players who learned how to defend like a modern, elite center. And yeah, it’s cool he was pioneering, but hat doesn’t make him better than someone who perfected the same defensive skills and was also elite on offense.

I guess it depends on how you evaluate players relative to era, but for me, yes, yes it does.

Is your average physics professor today a better physicist than Isaac Newton? Depending on how you account for era, you could definitely answer that question with a yes, and you wouldn’t be wrong, but other people might say no, and they wouldn’t be wrong either.

For me, Newton is the greatest physicist ever.

Well, as a student of physics, I'm not sure I agree. Leibinz, Pascal, Maxwell, Einstein and many others are also in conversation.

The reality is that it's probably impossible to find clear GOAT in any part of life, basketball is not an exeption.

[70sFan]

Become above average at offense for starters. If you play weaker competition than any other GOAT candidate (in most cases by large margins), then you better not have a gaping hole in your game if you want to be the greatest of all-time. It just make too much sense that he dominated that league because it was a weak league and not because of his immense talent when he’s so obviously flawed.

I view that era (guys who entered league between '55-'65) as:

Russ
Wilt
---------
Oscar
West
---------
---------
Hondo
Reed
Pettit
---------
Baylor

For a relatively low amount of teams that's a fairly good concentration of talent (for part of the era anyway)

I think a lot of his impact is that he was one of the first players who learned how to defend like a modern, elite center. And yeah, it’s cool he was pioneering, but hat doesn’t make him better than someone who perfected the same defensive skills and was also elite on offense.

Like say Steph Curry entered the league in the early ‘80s and was like “I’m a better shooter than everyone, I’m gonna bomb it from the line as much as I want”. Since he was the only one doing it, he’d probably have the same kind of league-warping impact that Russell’s rim protection did in the ‘60s. That wouldn’t suddenly make him better than LeBron and Jordan though who were just as good offensively, but were also elite defenders. It would just mean he was in the right place at the right time.

The problem with Curry analogy is that he needed great coach to convince him to play that way. Curry needed over 5 years to do what you are talking about. Without Kerr it's possible that he would never do that. It's unlikely that he would make something revolutionary in 80s because he didn't do it alone in 2010s either.

Meanwhile Russell was revolutionary even before he came into the NBA. He was basketball genius, he chose to play differently than he was taught because he saw more than the rest. He saw more than even the best coaches at that time. This is also part of his greatness - people think he was amazing because he played against weak competition but he had such a huge impact because of his mindset, his BBIQ. Very few players can compare to Russell in that aspect. That's why I will defend his GOAT case forever.

If being as good as Russell had been all about size, athleticism and length, then guys like Nate Thurmond, Walt Bellamy or even Walter Dukes would have been just as good defenders as him. That wasn't the case though, he wasn't the only athletic 6'10 player in 1960s but he was special among them.

[DatAsh]

I think a lot of his impact is that he was one of the first players who learned how to defend like a modern, elite center. And yeah, it’s cool he was pioneering, but hat doesn’t make him better than someone who perfected the same defensive skills and was also elite on offense.

I guess it depends on how you evaluate players relative to era, but for me, yes, yes it does.

Is your average physics professor today a better physicist than Isaac Newton? Depending on how you account for era, you could definitely answer that question with a yes, and you wouldn’t be wrong, but other people might say no, and they wouldn’t be wrong either.

For me, Newton is the greatest physicist ever.

Well, as a student of physics, I'm not sure I agree. Leibinz, Pascal, Maxwell, Einstein and many others are also in conversation.

The reality is that it's probably impossible to find clear GOAT in any part of life, basketball is not an exeption.

Haha that’s kinda tangential to the point I was trying to make, but yeah I have Newton over all those guys. Maybe I’m too high on Newton, but I see him as the intelligence goat, not just the physics goat.

Everyone sees things differently though. There’s very few unanimous anythings when there are as many people as there are.

[mrsocko]

One thing that always bugs me is when even supposedly intelligent posters say that the 60’s was a period of inferior talent. I think a lot of the bias is because they think players where smaller back then. How often have you heard that Russell would be a PF today. Even though he was taller than Dwight Howard barefoot. 6’9 5/8ths barefoot would mean he would be listed today at least 6’11 in shoes.

[Dr Positivity]

Babe Ruth is considered GOAT because he is the most dominant statistical player of all time for his era which Russell is not. Blocks and steals not being tracked hurts him but Wilt would still have better stats either way. Overall Russell's scoring isn't high enough for the media to consider him GOAT.

I have gone back and forth on Russell but I suspect the real answer is probably somewhere in the middle and he was around Curry impact which is still all time great impact but not quite as talented as Jordan, Lebron or Kareem. I think Curry and Russell is a good comparison because both players changed the game on one end of the floor due to the fear factor and if the Warriors win this year they'll have matched the Celtics dynasty first 5 years nearly identically with the losses to Lebron and Pettit being very similar. Except one difference is Russell's clutch history in the playoffs is better than Curry who if was going on 3 Finals MVPs all with huge scoring might have a better narrative for heading for top 10 all time

As good a question is what would Wilt have to do to be considered the GOAT. If he won 5 or 6 titles - which he was pretty close to doing, he may be looked at like a Ruth or Gretzky type figure

[Texas Chuck]

As good a question is what would Wilt have to do to be considered the GOAT. If he won 5 or 6 titles - which he was pretty close to doing, he may be looked at like a Ruth or Gretzky type figure

The irony of this post within a Russell thread cannot be lost on you right? You say Russell can't be GOAT because he doesn't have the stats of a Wilt, but Wilt could be GOAT if you imagine him having titles he specifically doesn't have because Russell existed.....

[Dr Positivity]

As good a question is what would Wilt have to do to be considered the GOAT. If he won 5 or 6 titles - which he was pretty close to doing, he may be looked at like a Ruth or Gretzky type figure

The irony of this post within a Russell thread cannot be lost on you right? You say Russell can't be GOAT because he doesn't have the stats of a Wilt, but Wilt could be GOAT if you imagine him having titles he specifically doesn't have because Russell existed.....

I'm more looking at it from the media and casual fan's perspective, not my real opinion which is that if Wilt played the same way but his teammates were more clutch it wouldn't make his career better

[Colbinii]

As good a question is what would Wilt have to do to be considered the GOAT. If he won 5 or 6 titles - which he was pretty close to doing, he may be looked at like a Ruth or Gretzky type figure

The irony of this post within a Russell thread cannot be lost on you right? You say Russell can't be GOAT because he doesn't have the stats of a Wilt, but Wilt could be GOAT if you imagine him having titles he specifically doesn't have because Russell existed.....

I'm more looking at it from the media and casual fan's perspective, not my real opinion which is that if Wilt played the same way but his teammates were more clutch it wouldn't make his career better

The issue here [and going to a casual fans perspective] is that they may not know who Bill Russell was.

[Hal14]

You make a good argument, but like others have said..it's the offensive numbers. Russell averaged 16.6 points per game, 44% FG and 56% FT.

Also, a little better longevity would help. I have him #6, and he played the least amount of games in my top 6...and he played with more hall of famers than the others in my top 6..

Definitely one of the all-time greats..a case can be made for him being the GOAT, and I definitely can't imagine putting him any lower than the 6 spot.