Michael Jordan vs Bill Russell

[tsherkin]

It means something comparatively though.

Yeah, it means Boston's defense was amazing. Their competition is immaterial to their offense, however, which is what you appeared to be implying.

[Cavsfansince84]

It means something comparatively though.

Yeah, it means Boston's defense was amazing. Their competition is immaterial to their offense, however, which is what you appeared to be implying.

Well what I'm saying is that Boston's offense looks worse in comparison. Not that it affects their ORtg. Its a 7-8 team league where half of the other offenses in the league are being anchored by atg offensive players while the Celtics had no atg level offensive players.

[tsherkin]

Well what I'm saying is that Boston's offense looks worse in comparison.

These weren't ATG offensive teams, man. They were mostly fairly weak offensive teams operating under misconceptions that took a couple of decades to overturn. Meantime, take 1963. There's a 6.4 spread of ORTG between league-best and league-worst. The Royals, led by Oscar, were very good. Boston, led by no one of consequence offensively, was dead last. They were 0.5 worse than the Knicks and 2.9 below the league average. This isn't a stunningly unusual deviation where they were left behind by high-end competition. Cherry-picking L.A. and Cincinnati doesn't actually say anything of merit as far as mitigating how bad Boston was offensively.

In the end, it didn't matter to them; they got the last laugh through defense and rebounding en route to many, many titles. But offense was not their jam, they were not good at it.

[falcolombardi]

I think is inportant to remember that celtics defense was so absurd and the amount of teams so low that their rating relative to league average is affected heavily by themselves being part of that average

In a 30 team league a +7.5 offense only moves the league average up 0.25 points

The celtics average -8 defense in a 8 team league tho? They move the league average down by over 1 point, at their best of -10 they would move the league average down almost a point and a half

Or in other words, we probably need to mentally adjust their relative defense ratings a extra point or so

[Cavsfansince84]

I think is inportant to remember that celtics defense was so absurd and the amount of teams so low that their rating relative to league average is affected heavily by themselves being part of that average

In a 30 team league a +7.5 offense only moves the league average up 0.25 points

The celtics average -8 defense in a 8 team league tho? They move the league average down by over 1 point, at their best of -10 they would move the league average down almost a point and a half

Or in other words, we probably need to mentally adjust their relative defense ratings a extra point or so

This is also a valid point. In such a small league the fact that the Celtics' offense didn't to have to play its defense which helps its rating while the defense didn't get to play against the worst offense. So the gap between them is probably even larger than numbers suggest.

[tsherkin]

I think is inportant to remember that celtics defense was so absurd and the amount of teams so low that their rating relative to league average is affected heavily by themselves being part of that average

Yes, I think it's effectively impossible to OVERstate the power of their defense and how absurd it was. I think these comments on their O only serve to reinforce how insane that D had to be in order to enable their victories year after year.

[OhayoKD]

Trust me, I watched 60’s basketball and am in regular contact with people who grew up in that era. The general consensus is that Wilt Chamberlain was the greatest player of that era, even greater than Kareem or Russell. A decent but not perfect analogy would be Kevin Durant on the Warriors vs LeBron James during 2017 and 2018. Durant was regarded as a superstar but his team head and shoulders above LeBron’s. Russell’s Celtics were also that far above their competition and peers. He did play his role perfectly though and did not need to score a significant amount or very efficiently give his roster makeup. Durant was still #2 to LeBron as Russell was regarded as #2 to Wilt, though he certainly won way more.

The ‘94 Bulls were fools gold. I can more justifiably bring up the ‘95 Bulls and how they were a barely .500 middling team until Jordan came back. Jordan fully healthy was essentially the difference in turning a .500 team into a 72-win all-time monolith. That’s the type of impact someone like LeBron never had.

If you compare the 2 teams, it’s quite clear that Russell played with and required more all-stars, hall of famers and all-NBA equivalent talent than Jordan did. When you are limited offensively, that’s just the nature of the team you’ll need. Imagining Russell carrying the 98 Bulls to a title for example is not doable given the anemic offensive support the Bulls had outside of Jordan basically single-handedly carrying them.

The eye test and impact numbers both support Russell being the best defensive player ever by quite some distance (though Wilt was decently close at his peak) but very little else is there for a GOAT argument. His PER’s mostly peaked out at 18-19 while Jordan’s were in the 30-31’s. His OWS were generally substandard and TS% well below 50%’s each season. WS is one of the most reliable stats out there for individual impact on a team and Jordan’s peaked at over 20+ his best seasons which Russell did not do.

When you watch footage you will notice an obvious lack of post game, midrange jumper, jump hook, pick & roll offense and an inability to initiate an offense regularly . OTOH he was an elite outlet passer, transition player, help defender as well as obviously the best rim protector and shot blocker the game has seen.

All time Mt. Rushmore player for sure but #4 or #5 all-time is more accurate for Russell.

What do you mean regular contact by people of that era? You're talking like you're talking to the last holocaust survivors. There are plenty of people who saw them play.

It sounds like you talked to like 2 old guys and thats it, because there is no reality where it was the "consensus" that Wilt Chamberlain was the best player. That's like saying it was the consensus that Larry Bird was the best player of the 80s.

wasn't bill russell literally voted the goat after the 69 playoffs?

[OhayoKD]

Trust me, I watched 60’s basketball and am in regular contact with people who grew up in that era. The general consensus is that Wilt Chamberlain was the greatest player of that era, even greater than Kareem or Russell. A decent but not perfect analogy would be Kevin Durant on the Warriors vs LeBron James during 2017 and 2018. Durant was regarded as a superstar but his team head and shoulders above LeBron’s. Russell’s Celtics were also that far above their competition and peers. He did play his role perfectly though and did not need to score a significant amount or very efficiently give his roster makeup. Durant was still #2 to LeBron as Russell was regarded as #2 to Wilt, though he certainly won way more.

The ‘94 Bulls were fools gold. I can more justifiably bring up the ‘95 Bulls and how they were a barely .500 middling team until Jordan came back. Jordan fully healthy was essentially the difference in turning a .500 team into a 72-win all-time monolith. That’s the type of impact someone like LeBron never had.

If you compare the 2 teams, it’s quite clear that Russell played with and required more all-stars, hall of famers and all-NBA equivalent talent than Jordan did. When you are limited offensively, that’s just the nature of the team you’ll need. Imagining Russell carrying the 98 Bulls to a title for example is not doable given the anemic offensive support the Bulls had outside of Jordan basically single-handedly carrying them.

The eye test and impact numbers both support Russell being the best defensive player ever by quite some distance (though Wilt was decently close at his peak) but very little else is there for a GOAT argument. His PER’s mostly peaked out at 18-19 while Jordan’s were in the 30-31’s. His OWS were generally substandard and TS% well below 50%’s each season. WS is one of the most reliable stats out there for individual impact on a team and Jordan’s peaked at over 20+ his best seasons which Russell did not do.

When you watch footage you will notice an obvious lack of post game, midrange jumper, jump hook, pick & roll offense and an inability to initiate an offense regularly . OTOH he was an elite outlet passer, transition player, help defender as well as obviously the best rim protector and shot blocker the game has seen.

All time Mt. Rushmore player for sure but #4 or #5 all-time is more accurate for Russell.

What do you mean regular contact by people of that era? You're talking like you're talking to the last holocaust survivors. There are plenty of people who saw them play.

It sounds like you talked to like 2 old guys and thats it, because there is no reality where it was the "consensus" that Wilt Chamberlain was the best player. That's like saying it was the consensus that Larry Bird was the best player of the 80s.

wasn't bill russell literally voted the goat after the 69 playoffs?

Also tbh. I feel like you can make a better version of the wilt vs russell argument for hakeem vs mj tbh.

[JordansBulls]

Trust me, I watched 60’s basketball and am in regular contact with people who grew up in that era. The general consensus is that Wilt Chamberlain was the greatest player of that era, even greater than Kareem or Russell. A decent but not perfect analogy would be Kevin Durant on the Warriors vs LeBron James during 2017 and 2018. Durant was regarded as a superstar but his team head and shoulders above LeBron’s. Russell’s Celtics were also that far above their competition and peers. He did play his role perfectly though and did not need to score a significant amount or very efficiently give his roster makeup. Durant was still #2 to LeBron as Russell was regarded as #2 to Wilt, though he certainly won way more.

The ‘94 Bulls were fools gold. I can more justifiably bring up the ‘95 Bulls and how they were a barely .500 middling team until Jordan came back. Jordan fully healthy was essentially the difference in turning a .500 team into a 72-win all-time monolith. That’s the type of impact someone like LeBron never had.

If you compare the 2 teams, it’s quite clear that Russell played with and required more all-stars, hall of famers and all-NBA equivalent talent than Jordan did. When you are limited offensively, that’s just the nature of the team you’ll need. Imagining Russell carrying the 98 Bulls to a title for example is not doable given the anemic offensive support the Bulls had outside of Jordan basically single-handedly carrying them.

The eye test and impact numbers both support Russell being the best defensive player ever by quite some distance (though Wilt was decently close at his peak) but very little else is there for a GOAT argument. His PER’s mostly peaked out at 18-19 while Jordan’s were in the 30-31’s. His OWS were generally substandard and TS% well below 50%’s each season. WS is one of the most reliable stats out there for individual impact on a team and Jordan’s peaked at over 20+ his best seasons which Russell did not do.

When you watch footage you will notice an obvious lack of post game, midrange jumper, jump hook, pick & roll offense and an inability to initiate an offense regularly . OTOH he was an elite outlet passer, transition player, help defender as well as obviously the best rim protector and shot blocker the game has seen.

All time Mt. Rushmore player for sure but #4 or #5 all-time is more accurate for Russell.

What do you mean regular contact by people of that era? You're talking like you're talking to the last holocaust survivors. There are plenty of people who saw them play.

It sounds like you talked to like 2 old guys and thats it, because there is no reality where it was the "consensus" that Wilt Chamberlain was the best player. That's like saying it was the consensus that Larry Bird was the best player of the 80s.

wasn't bill russell literally voted the goat after the 69 playoffs?

Also tbh. I feel like you can make a better version of the wilt vs russell argument for hakeem vs mj tbh.

No not really at least Wilt vs Russell have similar number of MVP's and Wilt had better stats while Russell had more winning. Hakeem vs MJ, MJ had better in both in the same era.