For a culture that only values rings and MVP's why isn't Russell seen as the undisputed Goat.

[coastalmarker99]

For someone who won 11 rings and had a lot of great finals performances, it is strange that Russell rarely gets bought up in the Goat debate nowadays.


As If Wilt or Kareem hypothetically had even remotely close to the same titles as Russell has.


Let's say 8 to 9 titles they would be seen by 99% percent of people nowadays as the undisputed Goat regardless of the era they played in.


You could make the argument that if Russel had even averaged 23 to 25 PPG for his career despite winning fewer rings than he did in reality.


Let's say 9 rings that he would get ranked a lot more as the Goat.

[falcolombardi]

He played before most peopel currently invested in the nba discourse were alive and was not a scorer

[coastalmarker99]

He played before most peopel currently invested in the nba discourse were alive and was not a scorer

The thing is I think he would be viewed as the Goat on this site nowadays and everywhere else had he just averaged 23 to 25 PPG for his career.


Despite winning fewer rings than 11 as strange as that sounds.

As if Russell had won 9 rings while averaging over 25to 27 PPG against teams such as LA and the Hawks in the finals that would be viewed as the holy grail of resumes.

[falcolombardi]

He played before most peopel currently invested in the nba discourse were alive and was not a scorer

The thing is I think he would be viewed as the Goat on this site nowadays and everywhere else had he just averaged 23 to 25 PPG for his career.


Despite winning fewer rings than 11 as strange as that sounds.

As if Russell had won 9 rings while averaging over 25to 27 PPG against teams such as LA and the Hawks in the finals that would be viewed as the holy grail of resumes.

I agree

[coastalmarker99]

He played before most peopel currently invested in the nba discourse were alive and was not a scorer

The thing is I think he would be viewed as the Goat on this site nowadays and everywhere else had he just averaged 23 to 25 PPG for his career.


Despite winning fewer rings than 11 as strange as that sounds.

As if Russell had won 9 rings while averaging over 25to 27 PPG against teams such as LA and the Hawks in the finals that would be viewed as the holy grail of resumes.

I agree

It is fascinating to see where people such as Jordan fans who usually hide behind the 6 rings argue with Lebron rank Russell all-time


As if every other Goat candidate had 8 rings there wouldn't even be a debate nowadays.


As Wilt would have the stats and rings.

While Kareem would have the peak and longevity.

Likewise for Lebron and Jordan.



What hurts Russell I guess in the debate is his lack of All-NBA first teams and lacklustre two-way game compared to those guys.

[HeartBreakKid]

People learn about him after their opinions have been molded. It's easier at that point to just go "bah, he's old, he doesn't matter" then to rethink their list and criteria.

[coastalmarker99]

People learn about him after their opinions have been molded. It's easier at that point to just go "bah, he's old, he doesn't matter" then to rethink their list and criteria.

Do you think it would a lot harder for the modern-day fan to dismiss Russell even with 9 rings instead of 11 had he posted greater PPG numbers for his career and in the finals?

Personally the main difference would be that rings+high scoring = more valid GOAT argument, at least going by the logic of modern fans.

People constantly use Russell's low scoring as a slight against him, so as not to have him as a valid GOAT candidate.


They wouldn't be able to do this against Russell and it wouldn't matter even if Russell won a little less than 11 titles because very few would dare assume that others would be able to win more in Russell's place.


So, they would have to bring Russell's era even lower than they already try to.

As he would have the best Finals resume ever which is the Holy Grail of modern fans arguments.

Their second best argument would be if Boston happened to lose some Finals' series and there might appear some "6/6 > 9/12" crap here and there, but that's totally ridiculous and even most casual fans try to find something better to come up with.

[HeartBreakKid]

People learn about him after their opinions have been molded. It's easier at that point to just go "bah, he's old, he doesn't matter" then to rethink their list and criteria.

Do you think it would a lot harder for the modern-day fan to dismiss Russell even with 9 rings instead of 11 had he posted greater PPG numbers for his career and in the finals?

Yes, it would be harder. People are not comfortable with the idea that a defensive player could dominate. The high amount of rings has diminishing returns after 7 to a certain audience.

That is another thing that people would have to change their criteria and opinions on (including most people on here such as myself). We don't really know if we value defensive players correctly, it's entirely possible that 15 years from now people will have stats or a better understanding of defensive players that make us look primitive.



There is also the fact that people did not care that much about who had a ton of rings and MVPs until Jordan came by. That was never that big of a narrative before. Players post Jordan are criticized heavily more for not winning even if they're young and haven't won (like Giannis just a few years ago).

[NO-KG-AI]

People only overvalue rings when it's convenient for their argument. Bill Russell isn't the guy they grew up watching, so his rings are invalid.

[Cavsfansince84]

I'd imagine his goat case would have a lot more traction right now if he'd been in the 20-23ppg range most of his prime with a ts+ over 100 but I agree with the sentiment above that there's a lot of people who would have MJ or LeBron at #1 regardless simply because they grew up on them or became fans and that's the way they see things. Russell would get era or stacked team arguments made against him regardless I think.

[70sFan]

Because most of the ring culture grew up in Jordan era and they use these arguments to prove that Jordan is the best.

[OhayoKD]

The thing is I think he would be viewed as the Goat on this site nowadays and everywhere else had he just averaged 23 to 25 PPG for his career.


Despite winning fewer rings than 11 as strange as that sounds.

As if Russell had won 9 rings while averaging over 25to 27 PPG against teams such as LA and the Hawks in the finals that would be viewed as the holy grail of resumes.

I agree

It is fascinating to see where people such as Jordan fans who usually hide behind the 6 rings argue with Lebron rank Russell all-time


As if every other Goat candidate had 8 rings there wouldn't even be a debate nowadays.


As Wilt would have the stats and rings.

While Kareem would have the peak and longevity.

Likewise for Lebron and Jordan.



What hurts Russell I guess in the debate is his lack of All-NBA first teams and lacklustre two-way game compared to those guys.

if you look past the scoring or era factors, russell's argument is virtually impossible to get past for jordan. Won more, won more in less, won with less help multiple times.

[falcolombardi]

People learn about him after their opinions have been molded. It's easier at that point to just go "bah, he's old, he doesn't matter" then to rethink their list and criteria.

Do you think it would a lot harder for the modern-day fan to dismiss Russell even with 9 rings instead of 11 had he posted greater PPG numbers for his career and in the finals?

Yes, it would be harder. People are not comfortable with the idea that a defensive player could dominate. The high amount of rings has diminishing returns after 7 to a certain audience.

That is another thing that people would have to change their criteria and opinions on (including most people on here such as myself). We don't really know if we value defensive players correctly, it's entirely possible that 15 years from now people will have stats or a better understanding of defensive players that make us look primitive.



There is also the fact that people did not care that much about who had a ton of rings and MVPs until Jordan came by. That was never that big of a narrative before. Players post Jordan are criticized heavily more for not winning even if they're young and haven't won (like Giannis just a few years ago).

Which is all thinghs considered very ironic as jordan didnt win until his late 20's

And was himself heavily criticizrd by talking heads of the time for "not being a winner" before he started winning

[Stalwart]

Do you think it would a lot harder for the modern-day fan to dismiss Russell even with 9 rings instead of 11 had he posted greater PPG numbers for his career and in the finals?

Yes, it would be harder. People are not comfortable with the idea that a defensive player could dominate. The high amount of rings has diminishing returns after 7 to a certain audience.

That is another thing that people would have to change their criteria and opinions on (including most people on here such as myself). We don't really know if we value defensive players correctly, it's entirely possible that 15 years from now people will have stats or a better understanding of defensive players that make us look primitive.



There is also the fact that people did not care that much about who had a ton of rings and MVPs until Jordan came by. That was never that big of a narrative before. Players post Jordan are criticized heavily more for not winning even if they're young and haven't won (like Giannis just a few years ago).

Which is all thinghs considered very ironic as jordan didnt win until his late 20's

And was himself heavily criticizrd by talking heads of the time for "not being a winner" before he started winning

The reason Jordan was being criticized for not winning was because "rings" was the standard he was being held to. By the late 80s Jordan had already accomplished everything Bird, Magic, and ATGs before them had accomplished other than win a NBA title. So that became the argument against Jordan. "Yeah, yeah he can score alot of points but can he win like Bird and Magic?" Thats why Jordan was holding the trophy and crying so much when he win in '91. It was his ultimate validation.

So although its true that people didn't put as much emphasis on titles prior to Jordan that emphasis didn't start with Jordan fans. It started with Jordan critics. It started with Bird and Magic fans. Kareem fans. Russell fans. Oscar fans. And they had a point. Jordan had to actually adjust the way he played and learn how to better include and trust his teammates to become a champion.

And since Jordan all GOAT level, BITW players had to face that pressure to win. Its a right of passage. Shaq had to face it. Kobe had to face it, post-Shaq. Lebron had to go through it. Steph faced it after KD left. Giannis dealt with it. KD is facing it right now. Guys like Barkley & Malone faced it but came up short and had their legacies damaged. Pretty soon guys like Luka and Jokic will be getting pressured to win. Just part of the game.

[Texas Chuck]

People reverse engineered criteria for Mike. Don't fall into that trap or any other completely arbitrary measures.

Sent from my SM-A125U using RealGM mobile app

[Stalwart]

People reverse engineered criteria for Mike. Don't fall into that trap or any other completely arbitrary measures.

Sent from my SM-A125U using RealGM mobile app

What was the criteria prior to Mike?

[Statlanta]

If he didn't have a peer that set individual records he would be more undisputed. But since Chamberlain exists his individual greatness is diminished and he seems more of a team environment type of ordeal like Duncan or Curry.

[prolific passer]

Russell was a 20 20 guy in college and had a few 20 20 playoff runs for the Celtics in his pro career. Probably could have been a career 20 20 guy if he was given the chance to but that's not what Red wanted him to do. He retooled his game for the Celtics as his career went along which shows his smarts for the game.

[sp6r=underrated]

He played before most peopel currently invested in the nba discourse were alive and was not a scorer

The thing is I think he would be viewed as the Goat on this site nowadays and everywhere else had he just averaged 23 to 25 PPG for his career.


Despite winning fewer rings than 11 as strange as that sounds.

As if Russell had won 9 rings while averaging over 25to 27 PPG against teams such as LA and the Hawks in the finals that would be viewed as the holy grail of resumes.

Yup if he did what he did as an offensive centric player, or even 90% of what he did, he'd still be the centerpoint of the GOAT discussion

[tsherkin]

I think highly of Bill Russell. I war with myself back on forth on who I consider the GOAT, and he's in the mix as a regular contender. But off the top of my head, the nature of the league back in the day does impact things. The playoffs were shorter and you could win a title with just two playoff series, as Boston did in 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, and 65. That is a luxury that was not afforded to later teams. They won it in 3 series in 66, 68 and 69. Teams that had to go through four series without the option of a first round buy played a very different postseason compared to what the Celtics enjoyed.

Russell could only play the postseason from his own time and the achievement is still impressive, but it IS worth mentioning when we're discussing WHY some people look at Russell's rings a little differently. 8- to 14-team leagues changed things. It was what it was, right? The sport was developing, growing. Russell was a critical part of that. So it's not necessarily something to look at as "bad," per se, or to look down upon, but it does change the nature of the achievement compared to other guys.

You can circle back to MVPs. You can circle back to rebounding, you can circle back to league-changing defense on a level we haven't really seen from anyone else since. You can look at lots of stuff to find compelling pro-Russell arguments. But it is at least comprehensible to me why some people will look at some of those specific achievements differently compared to later eras.