bledredwine wrote:But let's be objective. The league was created in 1949 and many players had extra jobs. We already know the
height discrepancies between Wilt/Russell and the rest of the league.
In 1960 the average height for a center was 6'10.1" and Bill Russell was 6'10". The average height for the league at that time was about a half inch shorter than in 2021.
I'm not sure why these myths are still around when they are easily disproven.
It's one thing to call a league uncompetitive when there's no data supporting this and it has already been around for many decades, but this was a league that was brand spankin new.... less than a decade as he was winning these championships with a stacked squad.
A stacked squad that went 10-18 in the 28 games Russell missed in his career. That looks like a terrible record compared to the 71% win rate with Russell.
Russell's efficiency was awful, despite the height advantage.
His offensive efficiency was better than average. And somehow the team won with him playing big minutes. And lost when he didn't play.
His passing was phenomenal for a big man. He averaged over 5 assists/game in 7 different playoff runs.
This is why many of his teammates were considered hall of famers- they carried the scoring.
Some of them are. But several of them aren't HoF'ers without the rings. The Celtics were always in the bottom half of the league for offensive efficiency during the Russell years, except for 1 season. These offensive stars who carried the scoring couldn't carry the team to being an offensively great?
The other Celtics often get underrated, when many of them were stellar. But you're overrating a lot of them when the numbers do not back that up.
For me personally, the GOAT of a sport has to be dominant as an offensive player and in this particular sport, needs to be able to get buckets (especially in crunch time).
The Celtics were great in crunch time. They won close games and close series. Russell is 10-0 in game 7s. No one else comes close.