twyzted wrote:Kinda wild that the whole argument against Jordan boils down to: -90s sucked: somehow adding 6 teams over 7 year period made the league watered down… But adding 14 teams over a 15 year period had no impact.
-inflatting Jordans teammates to some perfectly fitting players, all time great role players. .
inflating? no. we literally saw them play without MJ. callin it as it is aint inflatin. even if it hurts your idol. we literally switched from srs to raw wins and ur boi's team still won more than the 70 celts without 2 of their 3 best players. how the **** is that not stacked?
So in 94 Jordan retired. They kept the coach and 2/3 best players while adding Luc Longley, Toni Kukoc, Pete Myers and Steve Kerr. All of whom sloted into 4-5-6-7 players in the rotation.
Also i was talking about the role players not Pippen
Thanks for proving my point further P.s what happened when Phil, Jordan and Pippen left in 98?
Spoiler:
They went from 62-20 75.6% 7.24srs to 13-37 26% -8.58srs (would be 20-62 in 82 games season
You forgot Rodman too. It's striking that the record change from losing MJ, Scottie, Dennis and Phil is the SAME as the record change of the Cavs losing LeBron (accounting for an 82 game series). 42 whole games. Even more, they were slated for a WORSE record before trading off the "better" pieces from the previous year (Mo Williams, etc.). Astonishing!
ShaqAttac wrote:I wanna vote MIKAN for 2 but imma keep my vote in case i need to use it for bron.
Russell wasn't going to be voted number one.
no, youre confirmin that ya didnt read
1. In this thread you are to vote for your GOAT, and you also get a second vote to give you a say if your GOAT isn't one of the top 2 candidates.
We WERE TOLD to use our 2nd vote for whoever was in the top 2 candidates. I chose Russell and then mj n bron were the top 2 candidates so i chose between em. Good job hiding tho. Tried to call a 6th man a star and instead of concedin ur whining about "bron fans". Yall aint serious ppl
Uh huh. So you wish to continue this charade? Maybe the people around you aren't so swift on the uptake but such gaslighting baloney isn't going to get you anywhere with others.
Sad that a LeBron fan has to pose as a Russell fan. Are you that insecure in your fandom? Next time just call yourself BronAttac sure beats being SadAttac.
WarriorGM wrote: Merely confirming you're a LeBron fan:
Russell wasn't going to be voted number one.
no, youre confirmin that ya didnt read
1. In this thread you are to vote for your GOAT, and you also get a second vote to give you a say if your GOAT isn't one of the top 2 candidates.
We WERE TOLD to use our 2nd vote for whoever was in the top 2 candidates. I chose Russell and then mj n bron were the top 2 candidates so i chose between em. Good job hiding tho. Tried to call a 6th man a star and instead of concedin ur whining about "bron fans". Yall aint serious ppl
Uh huh. So you wish to continue this charade? Maybe the people around you aren't so swift on the uptake but such gaslighting baloney isn't going to get you anywhere with others.
Sad that a LeBron fan has to pose as a Russell fan. Are you that insecure in your fandom? Next time just call yourself BronAttac sure beats being SadAttac.
galslighting baloney is tryna hide that you lost the arg by accusin ppl of bein bron fans. ppl quick on the uptake probably noticed that you resorted to "ur a bron fan" after you were caught gassin up a 6th man.
bron fan, russ fan, dirk fan, don't **** matter. they still cook yo ass coz you don't got no clue what the **** youre talking about.
the only "charaade" is you usin big words to make it look like u got a brain
ShaqAttac wrote:inflating? no. we literally saw them play without MJ. callin it as it is aint inflatin. even if it hurts your idol. we literally switched from srs to raw wins and ur boi's team still won more than the 70 celts without 2 of their 3 best players. how the **** is that not stacked?
So in 94 Jordan retired. They kept the coach and 2/3 best players while adding Luc Longley, Toni Kukoc, Pete Myers and Steve Kerr. All of whom sloted into 4-5-6-7 players in the rotation.
Also i was talking about the role players not Pippen
Thanks for proving my point further P.s what happened when Phil, Jordan and Pippen left in 98?
Spoiler:
They went from 62-20 75.6% 7.24srs to 13-37 26% -8.58srs (would be 20-62 in 82 games season
You forgot Rodman too. It's striking that the record change from losing MJ, Scottie, Dennis and Phil is the SAME as the record change of the Cavs losing LeBron (accounting for an 82 game series). 42 whole games. Even more, they were slated for a WORSE record before trading off the "better" pieces from the previous year (Mo Williams, etc.). Astonishing!
twysted say he was gonna poke holes in all the pc args. yet here u are shootin right through his. im startin to think these hombres r all just talk.
ShaqAttac wrote:no, youre confirmin that ya didnt read
We WERE TOLD to use our 2nd vote for whoever was in the top 2 candidates. I chose Russell and then mj n bron were the top 2 candidates so i chose between em. Good job hiding tho. Tried to call a 6th man a star and instead of concedin ur whining about "bron fans". Yall aint serious ppl
Uh huh. So you wish to continue this charade? Maybe the people around you aren't so swift on the uptake but such gaslighting baloney isn't going to get you anywhere with others.
Sad that a LeBron fan has to pose as a Russell fan. Are you that insecure in your fandom? Next time just call yourself BronAttac sure beats being SadAttac.
galslighting baloney is tryna hide that you lost the arg by accusin ppl of bein bron fans. ppl quick on the uptake probably noticed that you resorted to "ur a bron fan" after you were caught gassin up a 6th man.
bron fan, russ fan, dirk fan, don't **** matter. they still cook yo ass coz you don't got no clue what the **** youre talking about.
the only "charaade" is you usin big words to make it look like u got a brain
Gassin' up Sam Jones? You a supposed Bill Russell fan complaining about that? Bill Russell fan my foot.
A certain poster trying to dismiss other posters by calling them a "Lebron fan" like they haven't done that every other time they have nothing meaningful to say or to hide their insecurities.
So there were still 4 rounds in the playoffs to win the title.
The NBA was relatively strong until 88-89 and then took awhile to recover. It took another hit in 1995-1996 when more awful expansion teams were added.
Lol still trying i see….an article saying that Jordan isnt clutch? Lol hilarious. This is Jordan in close out games in the finals
34/7/5 on 45% fg pct
What a loser right lol??
Did you actually watch any of his finals? I dont think you did if you actually think he isnt clutch.
An article trashing the opponents Jordan faced in the finals? Magic was second in mvp the year the Bulls beat LA in the finals. Barkley won mvp in 93. Malone won mvp in 97. He never faced a team as weak as the Miami Heat in the bubble. Hell i think every team he faced was better than my Mavs in 2011.
Between 2010 - 2018 James played with two allstars in Miami with Wade/Bosh and Love/Irving in Cleveland. The only allstar player Jordan ever played with was Pippen. Jordan was never lucky enough to play with two allstars like James did. But James needed more help. In fact, Wade had to teach James how to win in the finals.
That article is garbage pal. Better luck next time.
That's because your criteria for judging which teams are better is by simply looking at who has more all-stars and picking that team.
The Lakers team the Bulls faced in 91 finals had 3 HOF players. The Lakers won 50 plus games from 79/80 season to the 90/91 season. The Lakers won 60 plus games 6 times during that time period. They made the finals 87, 88, 89, and 91
The Portland Trailblazers won 50 plus games from 88/89 to 92/93. They won 63 games in 90/91 and 59 games the year before. That team made the finals twice and they had the deepest roster in the nba during this time.
The Phoenix Suns won 50 plus games from 88/89 to 94/95. They won 62 games the year they played the Bulls in the finals and 59 games the next year.
The Seattle Supersonics won 50 plus games from 92/93 to 97/98. They won 60 plus games 3 of those years including 64 games the year they played the Bulls in the finals. They were also deep.
The Utah Jazz won 50 plus games from 93/94 to 97/98. They won 60 plus games 3 of those years including 64 and 62 games the years they played the Bulls in the finals. They also had 2 HOF players on the roster.
If you actually watched 90s nba you would understand how great these teams were. They were not the Warriors but Jordan also didnt play with 2 other allstar players either.
twyzted wrote: So in 94 Jordan retired. They kept the coach and 2/3 best players while adding Luc Longley, Toni Kukoc, Pete Myers and Steve Kerr. All of whom sloted into 4-5-6-7 players in the rotation.
Also i was talking about the role players not Pippen
Thanks for proving my point further P.s what happened when Phil, Jordan and Pippen left in 98?
Spoiler:
They went from 62-20 75.6% 7.24srs to 13-37 26% -8.58srs (would be 20-62 in 82 games season
You forgot Rodman too. It's striking that the record change from losing MJ, Scottie, Dennis and Phil is the SAME as the record change of the Cavs losing LeBron (accounting for an 82 game series). 42 whole games. Even more, they were slated for a WORSE record before trading off the "better" pieces from the previous year (Mo Williams, etc.). Astonishing!
twysted say he was gonna poke holes in all the pc args. yet here u are shootin right through his. im startin to think these hombres r all just talk.
What powerhouse team was in the east when James played in Cleveland?
twyzted wrote: So in 94 Jordan retired. They kept the coach and 2/3 best players while adding Luc Longley, Toni Kukoc, Pete Myers and Steve Kerr. All of whom sloted into 4-5-6-7 players in the rotation.
Also i was talking about the role players not Pippen
Thanks for proving my point further P.s what happened when Phil, Jordan and Pippen left in 98?
Spoiler:
They went from 62-20 75.6% 7.24srs to 13-37 26% -8.58srs (would be 20-62 in 82 games season
You forgot Rodman too. It's striking that the record change from losing MJ, Scottie, Dennis and Phil is the SAME as the record change of the Cavs losing LeBron (accounting for an 82 game series). 42 whole games. Even more, they were slated for a WORSE record before trading off the "better" pieces from the previous year (Mo Williams, etc.). Astonishing!
twysted say he was gonna poke holes in all the pc args. yet here u are shootin right through his. im startin to think these hombres r all just talk.
No he isnt doing that he decided to somehow make this about Lebron. Which was barely mentioned in my post… but if that is shooting throught it in your books that you do you.
And that Lebron team only made the 2nd round, then Lebron left, coach left. Not all that uncommon for him to lose in the playoffs as the higher seed.
Crazy how you guys cant even address posts outside of 1 thing at most.
I dont think we have any option to do anything but talk.
WarriorGM wrote: Uh huh. So you wish to continue this charade? Maybe the people around you aren't so swift on the uptake but such gaslighting baloney isn't going to get you anywhere with others.
Sad that a LeBron fan has to pose as a Russell fan. Are you that insecure in your fandom? Next time just call yourself BronAttac sure beats being SadAttac.
galslighting baloney is tryna hide that you lost the arg by accusin ppl of bein bron fans. ppl quick on the uptake probably noticed that you resorted to "ur a bron fan" after you were caught gassin up a 6th man.
bron fan, russ fan, dirk fan, don't **** matter. they still cook yo ass coz you don't got no clue what the **** youre talking about.
the only "charaade" is you usin big words to make it look like u got a brain
Gassin' up Sam Jones? You a supposed Bill Russell fan complaining about that? Bill Russell fan my foot.
Why don't we see what a guy who doesn't like lebron and gives russell the most "goat-level" years of anyone and has literally broken down 60's teams again and again has to say:
70sFan wrote:
lessthanjake wrote:He doesn’t even have to be all that close to his best for his absence to make a very significant difference. And losing your 2nd or 3rd biggest scorer is obviously a serious issue in general.
The problem is that Sam Jones was far removed from his prime. He played 6th man minutes and even though he took a lot of shots, he wasn't efficient scorer in that season (posting -1 rTS% and regressing in the playoffs). He wasn't Celtics 2nd best scorer - Havlicek and Howell were much better than him at that point and you can argue that Don Nelson was also more critical for them.
The biggest problem with attributing a bit portion of this regression to Jones is that the Celtics didn't get worse offensively in the next season - they actually were marginally better due to the improvement of Havlicek and Nelson. Their regression came all from their defense.
[/quote]
I think at that point Jones was below average defender from games I have seen (he was a slight positive in his prime, but not an amazing defender even at his best).
I think efficient scoring is important, but Celtics had better scoring options than Jones in 1970.
For what it's worth, they got another year of experience, a great rookie and overall roster improvement in 1971 and they still missed the playoffs (though mostly due to the playoff system of the 1970s, they were already decent). All of that with Havlicek peaking as a player.
Anyway, I think we shouldn't just look at 1969->1970 and say that Russell was worthy of X wins, but at the same time we can say with a high degree of certainty that Celtics needed Russell desperately and they weren't a good team without him.
70's is a kareem fan yet, because they followed the evidence and not their bias, ended up giving russell more "goat-lvl" years. I think engaging with that might be more useful than accusing a russell voter of not actually liking russell because you didn't understand the voting procedure of the top 100.
NbaAllDay wrote:Counting games won in a season does hold some weight.
But we should also consider that the expansions during the time likely helped inflate some of the year on year wins.
Teams can protect up to 8 players. That means expansion teams cant just select any player from a team. Expansion teams are plucking the 9th best player from a team. I think some people are making more out of this than what it is. For the Mavs last year for example. They could protect:
Luka Irving Kleber Hardaway Green Bullock Hardy Powell
OhayoKD wrote:70's is a kareem fan yet, because they followed the evidence and not their bias, ended up giving russell more "goat-lvl" years. I think engaging with that might be more useful than accusing a russell voter of not actually liking russell because you didn't understand the voting procedure of the top 100.
70sFan is the basketball equivalent of that art film student who goes on about how Andrei Tarkovsky is a genius and how Solaris and Andrei Rublev are masterpieces of cinema. Maybe you are impressed by that kind of thing; I'm not.
As for that other poster, I dislike it when people misrepresent themselves to me and I'm willing to call it out. I suggest you practice the investigative skills you exercise in ranking players to come up with the rationale that poster used to come up with his list and try explaining it. I think I understand how the voting process there works thank you very much.
Taj FTW wrote:You forgot Rodman too. It's striking that the record change from losing MJ, Scottie, Dennis and Phil is the SAME as the record change of the Cavs losing LeBron (accounting for an 82 game series). 42 whole games. Even more, they were slated for a WORSE record before trading off the "better" pieces from the previous year (Mo Williams, etc.). Astonishing!
twysted say he was gonna poke holes in all the pc args. yet here u are shootin right through his. im startin to think these hombres r all just talk.
No he isnt doing that he decided to somehow make this about Lebron. Which was barely mentioned in my post… but if that is shooting throught it in your books that you do you.:
ur post which tried to pretend pete myers wasn't a terrible player? how bout you address how the bulls were still good after they lost grant.
ppl have literally gassed up 93 bulls by usin their 92 **** n mj still dont look comp. celts went from beatin a superteam to bad and u had to ignore hondo gettin better and gas up a 6th man coz of his pee-pee-gee. just give up
ShaqAttac wrote:galslighting baloney is tryna hide that you lost the arg by accusin ppl of bein bron fans. ppl quick on the uptake probably noticed that you resorted to "ur a bron fan" after you were caught gassin up a 6th man.
bron fan, russ fan, dirk fan, don't **** matter. they still cook yo ass coz you don't got no clue what the **** youre talking about.
the only "charaade" is you usin big words to make it look like u got a brain
Gassin' up Sam Jones? You a supposed Bill Russell fan complaining about that? Bill Russell fan my foot.
Why don't we see what a guy who doesn't like lebron and gives russell the most "goat-level" years of anyone and has literally broken down 60's teams again and again has to say:
70sFan wrote:
lessthanjake wrote:He doesn’t even have to be all that close to his best for his absence to make a very significant difference. And losing your 2nd or 3rd biggest scorer is obviously a serious issue in general.
The problem is that Sam Jones was far removed from his prime. He played 6th man minutes and even though he took a lot of shots, he wasn't efficient scorer in that season (posting -1 rTS% and regressing in the playoffs). He wasn't Celtics 2nd best scorer - Havlicek and Howell were much better than him at that point and you can argue that Don Nelson was also more critical for them.
The biggest problem with attributing a bit portion of this regression to Jones is that the Celtics didn't get worse offensively in the next season - they actually were marginally better due to the improvement of Havlicek and Nelson. Their regression came all from their defense.
I think at that point Jones was below average defender from games I have seen (he was a slight positive in his prime, but not an amazing defender even at his best).
I think efficient scoring is important, but Celtics had better scoring options than Jones in 1970.
For what it's worth, they got another year of experience, a great rookie and overall roster improvement in 1971 and they still missed the playoffs (though mostly due to the playoff system of the 1970s, they were already decent). All of that with Havlicek peaking as a player.
Anyway, I think we shouldn't just look at 1969->1970 and say that Russell was worthy of X wins, but at the same time we can say with a high degree of certainty that Celtics needed Russell desperately and they weren't a good team without him.
70's is a kareem fan yet, because they followed the evidence and not their bias, ended up giving russell more "goat-lvl" years. I think engaging with that might be more useful than accusing a russell voter of not actually liking russell because you didn't understand the voting procedure of the top 100.[/quote] they wont
OhayoKD wrote:70's is a kareem fan yet, because they followed the evidence and not their bias, ended up giving russell more "goat-lvl" years. I think engaging with that might be more useful than accusing a russell voter of not actually liking russell because you didn't understand the voting procedure of the top 100.
70sFan is the basketball equivalent of that art film student who goes on about how Andrei Tarkovsky is a genius and how Solaris and Andrei Rublev are masterpieces of cinema. Maybe you are impressed by that kind of thing; I'm not.
As for that other poster, I dislike it when people misrepresent themselves to me and I'm willing to call it out. I suggest you practice the investigative skills you exercise in ranking players to come up with the rationale that poster used to come up with his list and try explaining it. I think I understand how the voting process there works thank you very much.
i never seen someone try this hard to sound smart. think imma head out. mr. "russelll is tarkovskky" has clowned himself enough
lessthanjake wrote:He doesn’t even have to be all that close to his best for his absence to make a very significant difference. And losing your 2nd or 3rd biggest scorer is obviously a serious issue in general.
The problem is that Sam Jones was far removed from his prime. He played 6th man minutes and even though he took a lot of shots, he wasn't efficient scorer in that season (posting -1 rTS% and regressing in the playoffs). He wasn't Celtics 2nd best scorer - Havlicek and Howell were much better than him at that point and you can argue that Don Nelson was also more critical for them.
The biggest problem with attributing a bit portion of this regression to Jones is that the Celtics didn't get worse offensively in the next season - they actually were marginally better due to the improvement of Havlicek and Nelson. Their regression came all from their defense.
Their rORTG was essentially exactly identical, and ranked worse in the league. I’d also argue that, by that time, losing Russell the player was probably a *help* offensively, such that staying the same offensively suggests something else got worse—which could be multiple things, including missing Sam Jones, losing Russell the coach, etc.
You’re jumping through hoops to try to argue that missing Sam Jones wasn’t important at all. Sam Jones in 1969 was not Cleveland Cavaliers Shaq. He was not even close to as far off from his peak numbers as Cavaliers Shaq was. Nor was Shaq the 2nd or 3rd leading scorer on the Cavaliers.
I agree that Jones wasn't on Cavs Shaq form, but there is a middle ground between these two opinions. Yes, Sam definitely had an impact on his team even that late, but no - he wasn't even close to the most important players on this team. Losing your 4th or 5th best player could hurt, but it's not something that would make you collapse.
Yes, there is a middle ground, and that middle ground is absolutely not the “Losing Sam Jones didn’t matter and the team’s regression was solely due to losing Russell the player” conclusion.
And is scoring not still important for a good defensive team?
I think efficient scoring is important, but Celtics had better scoring options than Jones in 1970.
Sam Jones scored more efficiently than Havlicek in 1969 (albeit not in the low sample size of the playoffs). In fact, he was a volume scorer for them (3rd highest PPG on the team for the season and highest scoring per minute on the team), while having very slightly above average scoring efficiency compared to the rest of the team. When someone who scores at the highest rate on the team and does so at very slightly above team average efficiency leaves the team, that’s a serious issue that will likely hurt the team. As is losing your coach, in favor of a first-year coach.
and yeah they lost their coach. aka BILL RUSSELL who won 2 chips coaching AND playing. are you tryna tell me that makes it less impressive? R u tellin me his successor wasnt good?
No, I’m saying that evaluating Bill Russell as a player should be separate from him as a coach. And either way, first-year coaches tend to not do all that well, and that’s what the Celtics had the year after Russell left. That’s a significant issue.
For what it's worth, they got another year of experience, a great rookie and overall roster improvement in 1971 and they still missed the playoffs (though mostly due to the playoff system of the 1970s, they were already decent). All of that with Havlicek peaking as a player.
Anyway, I think we shouldn't just look at 1969->1970 and say that Russell was worthy of X wins, but at the same time we can say with a high degree of certainty that Celtics needed Russell desperately and they weren't a good team without him.
I don’t think we’re disagreeing. I don’t disagree that the Celtics were notably worse without Bill Russell. This is the loss of a player I voted #4 all time! What I’m objecting to is the idea that there were no other factors that helped cause the team’s regression, and that we can therefore attribute it all to the loss of Russell. And you are saying here that you don’t agree with that assessment either (i.e. “I think we shouldn’t just look at 1969->1970 and say that Russell was worthy of X wins”).
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
Taj FTW wrote:You forgot Rodman too. It's striking that the record change from losing MJ, Scottie, Dennis and Phil is the SAME as the record change of the Cavs losing LeBron (accounting for an 82 game series). 42 whole games. Even more, they were slated for a WORSE record before trading off the "better" pieces from the previous year (Mo Williams, etc.). Astonishing!
twysted say he was gonna poke holes in all the pc args. yet here u are shootin right through his. im startin to think these hombres r all just talk.
What powerhouse team was in the east when James played in Cleveland?
We've covered this but Lebron has beaten three teams that can be argued(at least empirically) as better playoff opponents than anyone Jordan's faced including an empirical match/better of the 90 Pistons(the 2013 Spurs). I'm not really sure why we're fixing on intra-conference opposition this much.
NbaAllDay wrote:Counting games won in a season does hold some weight.
But we should also consider that the expansions during the time likely helped inflate some of the year on year wins.
AEnigma wrote:He closed his career by serving as a player-coach and was consequently one of the few players to be the best player on title teams with distinct rosters and head coaches. In that role, he:
- came back 3-1 on the road against an 8-SRS defending champion 76ers team; - won the title over a Lakers team that had generated an even higher MoV when West played than the MoV of those 76ers; - and then repeated as champions by winning three road series (only matched by the 1995 Rockets), including series against the Wilt/West/Baylor super-team and against a Knicks team that with DeBusschere had been even better than those 1968 76ers and Lakers teams.
By my personal count he was the best player in his league at least six times; no remaining candidate hits six even with a generous assessment. I voted him at #2 and think he has the easiest #1 case. While I understand voting him lower based on questions over his inability to recreate his impossible defensive outlier status in later eras, that to me is only one element of “greatness”, and with Russell’s level of separation in every other element, those concerns are not enough for me to move him outside of this enshrined top four.
The 1967 Sixers, the only team to beat Bill Russell's Celtics when he played for at least half the series, had what was by far the second best player in the league on a team that was good without him(notable in a league where often no no one besides russell saw significant rs seperation). In 68 the Celtics beat those sixers(injuries helped tbf) and then beat a Lakers team that by MOV was even better with what was the best or 2nd best offensive player of the era was on the court. The best player from team a left to join team b forming an opponent substantially better(at least relative to era) than anyone jordan(or even Lebron) has ever topped.
Bill Russell beat that team with weaker support than Jordan has ever won with as both a player and a coach. Lebron(at least emperically) can be argued to have won with weaker support in 2016 but regardless of their 73-wins, those warriors were not as "stacked" as the 69 Lakers and Lebron hasn't really replicated that achievement(the 2013 Spurs were a great opponent, but unfair outlier they were not).
We can ask how such an achievement was possible, but it's pretty silly do try to undercut what Russell achieved because a player, for the course of their career(no doubt bolstered by Bill) they were recognized as great. Sam Jones was not a great player in 1969(70's breaks it down pretty well), and the Celtics offense improved anyway largely because Hondo started getting closer to the volume and efficiency that would see them join Jones on similar ranking lists.
Even in 71, now in a league with similarly inflated srs-counts like the 90's, the Celtics drafted a strong replacement for Russell, and still their srs(and record) was not as strong as what the 94 Bulls posted with Pippen and Grant. In fact, it was actually weaker than what the 95 Bulls posted having lost their best and 3rd best player. Mind you, the second-best player(Pippen) had just filed a trade request and had spent parts of 94 at shooting guard because Pete Myers was a terrible replacement.
It is one thing to appeal to uncertainty(we do not have an abundance of data for the 60's), it is another thing entirely to make positive claims like "Russell had way more help" when such claims are completely contradicted by what is available.
If you want to dismiss the 60's as weak(as I suppose basketball abruptly peaked 30 years ago), fine. But "Russell always played on great teams" is not a defensible position, nor is "Jordan's didn't actually have great help in Chicago". The 5-ring difference is likely because individual defense could be far more valuable in the 60's allowing Russell, the best man and help defender of his era(as well as one of the smartest players in nba history), to input greater influence on the game than anyone since. I voted Lebron and Kareem ahead on longetvity, but I have been pretty unequivocal that as far as making teams win championships go(in a comparison with temporal contemporaries), Russell's prime is basically unassailable(as in you cannot really construct a positive case against it).
He won way more than everyone else, and he kept winning when his support was weak and the competition was steeper. Simply put, individually. Russell was the most dominant player ever.
