RGM GOAT Debate Thread (Part 3)

[AlexanderRight]

So what does Phil Jackson not get when he says he would start a team with Russell?

Why do the people who actually saw Russell and Wilt play have a very different view from yours?

Bob Pettit said of Russell:



There is no contest between Bill and Wilt. That was settled a long time ago in the minds of the people who were there. I trust their judgement over whatever revisionism you've got going here in your attempt to rehabilitate Wilt's image.

Even Elgin Baylor who played in that era said that he would start a team with Bill Russell over Wilt.

Phil Jackson, Pettit, and Baylor understood basketball and that's why it's not even close in their minds that Russell is the obvious cornerstone that you build a winning franchise on. What are these legends not getting that is so obvious to you?

I'm not revising anything. I suggest you go back and read what I put in bold. Those are all facts my man, whether you like them or not...

Oh and by the way, Wilt has higher Win Shares for his career than Russell in the regular season and playoffs

You should reconsider your opinions of Wilt and Russell if they diverge so much from those of basketball HOFers who were around during that era.

Here's Jerry West a few days after his Big 3 lost to Boston:

Wilt Chamberlain is a better all-around player than Russell. He's a better scorer and rebounder and I think he even blocks more shots than Russell.

But for one guy for the one game I'd have to pick Bill Russell. His record speaks for itself.

If I had to say what the difference was in our final series, I'd say Bill Russell. He's a winner.

Notice that he doesn't say that Wilt did everything he could and just needs more help. He says that he'd pick Russell over Wilt even though he acknowledges that Wilt is the better all-around player.

Wilt set out to be the best player the world had ever seen. Bill set out to be the best winner the world had ever seen. Most would say that they both succeeded.

Might wanna read this...

"The argument from authority fallacy occurs when a claim is asserted as true solely because an authority figure or an expert made it, rather than on the basis of evidence. The argument relies solely on the authority's word, without any or minimal supporting facts or data. An argument can be fallacious if it ignores expert disagreement and presents one or few person's opinions as conclusive. The fallacy is in the over-reliance on the authority, particularly to dismiss other evidence, rather than using the expert's knowledge as one piece of evidence among others."

[KayDee35]

I'm not revising anything. I suggest you go back and read what I put in bold. Those are all facts my man, whether you like them or not...

Oh and by the way, Wilt has higher Win Shares for his career than Russell in the regular season and playoffs

You should reconsider your opinions of Wilt and Russell if they diverge so much from those of basketball HOFers who were around during that era.

Here's Jerry West a few days after his Big 3 lost to Boston:

Wilt Chamberlain is a better all-around player than Russell. He's a better scorer and rebounder and I think he even blocks more shots than Russell.

But for one guy for the one game I'd have to pick Bill Russell. His record speaks for itself.

If I had to say what the difference was in our final series, I'd say Bill Russell. He's a winner.

Notice that he doesn't say that Wilt did everything he could and just needs more help. He says that he'd pick Russell over Wilt even though he acknowledges that Wilt is the better all-around player.

Wilt set out to be the best player the world had ever seen. Bill set out to be the best winner the world had ever seen. Most would say that they both succeeded.

Might wanna read this...

"The argument from authority fallacy occurs when a claim is asserted as true solely because an authority figure or an expert made it, rather than on the basis of evidence. The argument relies solely on the authority's word, without any or minimal supporting facts or data. An argument can be fallacious if it ignores expert disagreement and presents one or few person's opinions as conclusive. The fallacy is in the over-reliance on the authority, particularly to dismiss other evidence, rather than using the expert's knowledge as one piece of evidence among others."

Are you seriously trying to hit me with some Phil 101 level stuff There's no need to put on airs. Relax. It's just a basketball discussion.

I have provided you an overwhelming amount of information and data. Let's recap:

- Celtics go 10-28 in games Russell missed
- Without him, those Celtics were on pace to be a 35-win team. With him, they were a 60-win team.
- Russell injured in Finals, his team loses
- Russell had the top 6 DWS seasons of all-time! No one else has this kind of dominance in any other stat. Russell was extremely special as a defender.
- Celtics defense was poor before and after Russell. With Bill they put up some of the best defensive seasons of all time.
- The years that Russell played, the Celtics offense with his All-NBA teammates was usually in the bottom half of the league. They won with defense, not offense.
- 4 Seasons without homecourt, Russell wins 3 rings during those years.
- Leads the #4 seed Celtics to a ring. The lowest seed ever to win ring at the time.
- Kept Oscar, Wilt, Baylor, and West from winning as much as they would have in other eras.

Russell's outlet passes, high-post passing, and screening set the Boston offense up for good looks. Russell's defense and quickness allowed the Celtics to bring double-teams and pressure the ball handler. Most of all, Russell was the kind of leader who not only empowered his teammates but would help cover up the areas in which they were weak. He saw his role as filling in the gaps and providing what his team needed that night to win.

If you look at just and box score and metrics, Russell is a puzzle. Wilt looks so much better on paper so why didn't he win more, especially against Russell. So you start reaching for explanations:

-"Wilt did not have enough help." - Except for the seasons when he better records and homecourt advantage. He loses to Russell 3 times out of 4 when he had the edge including to the #4 ranked Celtics, the lowest seed to win it all at the time and 2nd lowest ever.
-"If Wilt and Bill swapped teams the results would be reversed." - Except that Wilt did not commit to defense every year like Russell did, he was not the team leader Russell was, he did not sacrifice for the good of the team, and he did not see it as his job to make his teammates better.
-"Wilt performed well but his team let him down." - Basketball is a team game. Wilt could elevate his own game but couldn't always figure out how to lift his team.
-"Russell had loaded teams." - Except for them never winning before he showed up, after he left, and when he was injured. The team had a losing record without him but they were somehow still "loaded."

You keep citing Bill's "All-NBA" teammates but somehow their offense was in the bottom half of the league. Let's look at the '62-'63 season:

- The Celtics had all their offensive stars Cousy, Havlickek, Sam Jones, Heinsohn, Sanders, and Ramsey on this team. Their Ortg was the worst in the league and their Drtg was the best. The team's Offensive Win Shares was also the lowest in the league at 12 wins. Their Defensive Win Shares led the league with 46 wins!
- If you're doing the math, offense accounted for only 20% of their team success while defense accounted for 80% of their success.
- To put it in context, the 2003-04 Pistons with Ben Wallace was one of the lowest scoring teams ever and won with defense. Even their offense accounted for 33% of team success while defense accounted for 66%. And that team had good defenders at all positions - Big Ben, Sheed, Tayshaun, Rip, and Billups were all considered good to great on defense.
- The team won with defense and their defense went from terrible to legendary when Russell showed up.

Your claim that Russell's team were loaded quickly falls apart because they certainly weren't loaded on offense. A loaded offensive team does not put up the worst offensive numbers in the entire league! They were loaded on defense but only when Russell played. Everybody's Defensive Win Shares jumped when Russell played.

Russell is an anomaly in a league with huge egos. He was singularly focused on winning. He wasn't distracted by stats and awards. His college team won 2 titles when he was there - that college had never won a title before or since. Even MJ wasn't solely focused on winning when he came into the NBA, he was interested in records and triple doubles. He needed a Phil Jackson to help him focus on winning. To MJ's credit, he learned from Phil and became a winning player. But Bill had that even before he came into the league.

[lessthanjake]

Your claim that Russell's team were loaded quickly falls apart because they certainly weren't loaded on offense. A loaded offensive team does not put up the worst offensive numbers in the entire league! They were loaded on defense but only when Russell played. Everybody's Defensive Win Shares jumped when Russell played.

I think this argument kind of misses the distinct possibility that Russell was a significant reason the team was weak offensively. He was definitely not a good offensive player. And, more generally, we kind of know that defense-first big men tend to have some real negative impact offensively—especially when, like Russell, the points they score are inefficient despite being a non-volume-scoring big man who should get some easy buckets close to the basket. I think it’d be pretty surprising if he wasn’t a seriously negative-impact player offensively. Of course, he more than made up for that with elite defense, but I don’t really think the Celtics being weak offensively and Russell’s supporting cast having offensively-talented players are mutually exclusive if you just entertain the fairly-likely possibility that Russell was a seriously negative offensive player.

[NZB2323]

Your claim that Russell's team were loaded quickly falls apart because they certainly weren't loaded on offense. A loaded offensive team does not put up the worst offensive numbers in the entire league! They were loaded on defense but only when Russell played. Everybody's Defensive Win Shares jumped when Russell played.

I think this argument kind of misses the distinct possibility that Russell was a significant reason the team was weak offensively. He was definitely not a good offensive player. And, more generally, we kind of know that defense-first big men tend to have some real negative impact offensively—especially when, like Russell, the points they score are inefficient despite being a non-volume-scoring big man who should get some easy buckets close to the basket. I think it’d be pretty surprising if he wasn’t a seriously negative-impact player offensively. Of course, he more than made up for that with elite defense, but I don’t really think the Celtics being weak offensively and Russell’s supporting cast having offensively-talented players are mutually exclusive if you just entertain the fairly-likely possibility that Russell was a seriously negative offensive player.

We can kind of see that.

The 56 Celtics without Russell went 39-33 and were 3rd out of 8th in offensive rating. The 57 Celtics with Russell went 44-28 and were 5th in offensive rating out of 8th.

The 69 Celtics were worse offensively after losing Russell, but Russell was 1 of 6 players that the Celtics lost. Sam Jones also retired and they lost players to an expansion draft.

Wilt was clearly better than Russell in 67, but he wasn’t able to replicate that, so I’d have Russell ranked higher on career.

But when comparing Russell to other all-time greats like Jordan, Hakeem, or LeBron, it’s unquestionable that Russell had a better supporting cast. In 1958 the all-NBA 1st team guards were Russell’s teammates. Jordan and LeBron had great teammates, but Wade wasn’t that great in 2013 and Pippen wasn’t that great in 1998.

In the 69 Finals Russell didn’t win Finals MVP and he shot 39.7% from the field and 58.3% from the free throw line.

Havlicek averaged 28 and 11 and there were 5 other Celtics who had double digit scoring averages. Havlicek has a 2-0 Finals record without Russell.

[KokoKaizer]

What a lopsided poll^^

[KokoKaizer]

double post

[KayDee35]

Your claim that Russell's team were loaded quickly falls apart because they certainly weren't loaded on offense. A loaded offensive team does not put up the worst offensive numbers in the entire league! They were loaded on defense but only when Russell played. Everybody's Defensive Win Shares jumped when Russell played.

I think this argument kind of misses the distinct possibility that Russell was a significant reason the team was weak offensively. He was definitely not a good offensive player.

I see this incorrect claim occur typically when Russell is judged by modern standards. If you judge him by his era, you get a very different picture. Russell was:
- Top 5 in FG% for 4 seasons
- Top 10 in PER for 8 seasons
- #5 in Assists for one season, and top 10 for 3 others seasons
- Celtics were #1 in Pace for most of Russell's years (even post-Bob Cousy)

And, more generally, we kind of know that defense-first big men tend to have some real negative impact offensively—especially when, like Russell, the points they score are inefficient despite being a non-volume-scoring big man who should get some easy buckets close to the basket.

Russell learned all 5 positions for their offense and was the key to running it, especially after Cousy when he moved to the high post. He led Centers in assists for 8 seasons and was second among centers in assists for another 4 seasons (behind Wilt). Moreover, Russell did not distort the offense to get his assists, unlike Wilt.

Russell was not just a better version of Gobert/Wallace/Mutumbo/etc. These guys did not handle the ball, they did not key the offense, they were not elite passers, and they were not intimately involved in the offense through passing and screening like Russell.

Havlicek had this to say about Russell's offense:

“You couldn’t begin to count the ways we missed him. People think about him in terms of defense and rebounding, but he had been the key to our offense. He made the best pass more than anyone I have ever played with. That mattered to people like Nelson, Howell, Siegfried, Sanders, and myself. None of us were one-on-one players... Russell made us better offensive players. His ability as a passer, pick-setter, and general surmiser of offense has always been overlooked.”

[lessthanjake]

Your claim that Russell's team were loaded quickly falls apart because they certainly weren't loaded on offense. A loaded offensive team does not put up the worst offensive numbers in the entire league! They were loaded on defense but only when Russell played. Everybody's Defensive Win Shares jumped when Russell played.

I think this argument kind of misses the distinct possibility that Russell was a significant reason the team was weak offensively. He was definitely not a good offensive player.

I see this incorrect claim occur typically when Russell is judged by modern standards. If you judge him by his era, you get a very different picture. Russell was:
- Top 5 in FG% for 4 seasons
- Top 10 in PER for 8 seasons
- #5 in Assists for one season, and top 10 for 3 others seasons
- Celtics were #1 in Pace for most of Russell's years (even post-Bob Cousy)

Russell had a -148.9 TS Add for his career. That is comparing to his own era. He was a genuinely inefficient scorer in his own era, despite being a big man. He was a real negative as a scorer. And defense-first big men who score inefficiently despite being centers who should get some easy buckets are players that we generally see seriously negative offensive impact from. Of course, we can’t know for sure Russell’s offensive impact since we don’t have play-by-play data from that era. It’s possible his pretty good passing and his offensive rebounding made up for his inefficient scoring at the position that should be most efficient. But if you are basing your conclusions about his teammates on an assumption that Russell must not have been a weak offensive player, then I think you’re making a really dubious assumption.

And by the way, while we don’t have play-by-play data for Russell’s era, it is worth noting that the Celtics league-relative offensive rating got notably worse when Russell joined the team in 1957 and then stayed the same when he retired despite the team also losing their hall-of-fame, multi-time-all-NBA third-leading scorer Sam Jones. These are rough data points that are subject to noise, but they are consistent with Russell being a negative offensive player.

[KayDee35]

Your claim that Russell's team were loaded quickly falls apart because they certainly weren't loaded on offense. A loaded offensive team does not put up the worst offensive numbers in the entire league! They were loaded on defense but only when Russell played. Everybody's Defensive Win Shares jumped when Russell played.

I think this argument kind of misses the distinct possibility that Russell was a significant reason the team was weak offensively. He was definitely not a good offensive player. And, more generally, we kind of know that defense-first big men tend to have some real negative impact offensively—especially when, like Russell, the points they score are inefficient despite being a non-volume-scoring big man who should get some easy buckets close to the basket. I think it’d be pretty surprising if he wasn’t a seriously negative-impact player offensively. Of course, he more than made up for that with elite defense, but I don’t really think the Celtics being weak offensively and Russell’s supporting cast having offensively-talented players are mutually exclusive if you just entertain the fairly-likely possibility that Russell was a seriously negative offensive player.

We can kind of see that.

The 56 Celtics without Russell went 39-33 and were 3rd out of 8th in offensive rating. The 57 Celtics with Russell went 44-28 and were 5th in offensive rating out of 8th.

The 69 Celtics were worse offensively after losing Russell, but Russell was 1 of 6 players that the Celtics lost. Sam Jones also retired and they lost players to an expansion draft.

Wilt was clearly better than Russell in 67, but he wasn’t able to replicate that, so I’d have Russell ranked higher on career.

But when comparing Russell to other all-time greats like Jordan, Hakeem, or LeBron, it’s unquestionable that Russell had a better supporting cast. In 1958 the all-NBA 1st team guards were Russell’s teammates. Jordan and LeBron had great teammates, but Wade wasn’t that great in 2013 and Pippen wasn’t that great in 1998.

In the 69 Finals Russell didn’t win Finals MVP and he shot 39.7% from the field and 58.3% from the free throw line.

Havlicek averaged 28 and 11 and there were 5 other Celtics who had double digit scoring averages. Havlicek has a 2-0 Finals record without Russell.

- In 57 Russell played just 2/3 of the team's games. When Russell played that season, the Celtics were about a half-point better on offense and about a half-point better on defense. The facts do not support your narrative about Russell being bad on offense.

- Comparing team depth or talent across eras is a futile activity because it does not account for factors like the size of the league. Instead, a team's talent should be compared to the competition at that time. For example, MJ's #2 and #3 were always better than their counterparts on the other teams of that era.

- So yes, Russell did have 9 seasons where his teams were better than the league and they won 8 rings. He also had 4 seasons where he did not have the best team and won 3 rings. No one else has won 3 rings in 4 seasons where they were not the favorite.

- In 69, Boston upset a higher-seeded team in all 3 rounds to win the Championship. That was the lowest seed ever (#4) to win a ring at the time. The extent to which Russell anchored this team to a ring as player-coach is an all-time feat. Russell pulled off the biggest upset in NBA history and you're worried about Finals MVP going to Jerry West

[lessthanjake]

I think this argument kind of misses the distinct possibility that Russell was a significant reason the team was weak offensively. He was definitely not a good offensive player. And, more generally, we kind of know that defense-first big men tend to have some real negative impact offensively—especially when, like Russell, the points they score are inefficient despite being a non-volume-scoring big man who should get some easy buckets close to the basket. I think it’d be pretty surprising if he wasn’t a seriously negative-impact player offensively. Of course, he more than made up for that with elite defense, but I don’t really think the Celtics being weak offensively and Russell’s supporting cast having offensively-talented players are mutually exclusive if you just entertain the fairly-likely possibility that Russell was a seriously negative offensive player.

We can kind of see that.

The 56 Celtics without Russell went 39-33 and were 3rd out of 8th in offensive rating. The 57 Celtics with Russell went 44-28 and were 5th in offensive rating out of 8th.

The 69 Celtics were worse offensively after losing Russell, but Russell was 1 of 6 players that the Celtics lost. Sam Jones also retired and they lost players to an expansion draft.

Wilt was clearly better than Russell in 67, but he wasn’t able to replicate that, so I’d have Russell ranked higher on career.

But when comparing Russell to other all-time greats like Jordan, Hakeem, or LeBron, it’s unquestionable that Russell had a better supporting cast. In 1958 the all-NBA 1st team guards were Russell’s teammates. Jordan and LeBron had great teammates, but Wade wasn’t that great in 2013 and Pippen wasn’t that great in 1998.

In the 69 Finals Russell didn’t win Finals MVP and he shot 39.7% from the field and 58.3% from the free throw line.

Havlicek averaged 28 and 11 and there were 5 other Celtics who had double digit scoring averages. Havlicek has a 2-0 Finals record without Russell.

- In 57 Russell played just 2/3 of the team's games. When Russell played that season, the Celtics were about a half-point better on offense and about a half-point better on defense. The facts do not support your narrative about Russell being bad on offense.

We have no idea if the 1957 Celtics were better or worse on offense in the games Russell played, because we don’t know the pace those games were played at. What we do know, though, is that the 1956 Celtics had a better league-relative offensive rating than the Celtics ever had in any year with Russell. And only one year with Russell was even in the same ballpark. The Celtics were a consistently very good offense in the years before Russell arrived (even being 1st in the NBA in offensive rating three straight times), and they became a consistently weak offense once he arrived. The opposite happened to their defense. There’s a pretty natural inference here that you’re dogmatically refusing to even consider as a possibility.

[KayDee35]

I think this argument kind of misses the distinct possibility that Russell was a significant reason the team was weak offensively. He was definitely not a good offensive player.

I see this incorrect claim occur typically when Russell is judged by modern standards. If you judge him by his era, you get a very different picture. Russell was:
- Top 5 in FG% for 4 seasons
- Top 10 in PER for 8 seasons
- #5 in Assists for one season, and top 10 for 3 others seasons
- Celtics were #1 in Pace for most of Russell's years (even post-Bob Cousy)

Russell had a -148.9 TS Add for his career. That is comparing to his own era. He was a genuinely inefficient scorer in his own era, despite being a big man. He was a real negative as a scorer. And defense-first big men who score inefficiently despite being centers who should get some easy buckets are players that we generally see seriously negative offensive impact from. Of course, we can’t know for sure Russell’s offensive impact since we don’t have play-by-play data from that era. It’s possible his pretty good passing and his offensive rebounding made up for his inefficient scoring at the position that should be most efficient. But if you are basing your conclusions about his teammates on an assumption that Russell must not have been a weak offensive player, then I think you’re making a really dubious assumption.

And by the way, while we don’t have play-by-play data for Russell’s era, it is worth noting that the Celtics league-relative offensive rating got notably worse when Russell joined the team in 1957 and then stayed the same when he retired despite the team also losing their hall-of-fame, multi-time-all-NBA third-leading scorer Sam Jones. These are rough data points that are subject to noise, but they are consistent with Russell being a negative offensive player.

Russell's FG% was above league average for all his seasons except for 3 of his last 4 years when his scoring output also declined.

Your confidence in your interpretation of the data from 1957 is misplaced because you do not account for Russell's absence for a third of the team's games nor do you account for the other changes in the team from the previous year, such as Heinsohn, thus pinning the results entirely on Russell without proper warrant.

Russell won a ring as the leading playoff scorer on his team. He was their second leading playoff scorer multiple times during other championship runs.

I see a narrative in search of data. I'm still waiting on the data.

[lessthanjake]

I see this incorrect claim occur typically when Russell is judged by modern standards. If you judge him by his era, you get a very different picture. Russell was:
- Top 5 in FG% for 4 seasons
- Top 10 in PER for 8 seasons
- #5 in Assists for one season, and top 10 for 3 others seasons
- Celtics were #1 in Pace for most of Russell's years (even post-Bob Cousy)

Russell had a -148.9 TS Add for his career. That is comparing to his own era. He was a genuinely inefficient scorer in his own era, despite being a big man. He was a real negative as a scorer. And defense-first big men who score inefficiently despite being centers who should get some easy buckets are players that we generally see seriously negative offensive impact from. Of course, we can’t know for sure Russell’s offensive impact since we don’t have play-by-play data from that era. It’s possible his pretty good passing and his offensive rebounding made up for his inefficient scoring at the position that should be most efficient. But if you are basing your conclusions about his teammates on an assumption that Russell must not have been a weak offensive player, then I think you’re making a really dubious assumption.

And by the way, while we don’t have play-by-play data for Russell’s era, it is worth noting that the Celtics league-relative offensive rating got notably worse when Russell joined the team in 1957 and then stayed the same when he retired despite the team also losing their hall-of-fame, multi-time-all-NBA third-leading scorer Sam Jones. These are rough data points that are subject to noise, but they are consistent with Russell being a negative offensive player.

Russell's FG% was above league average for all his seasons except for 3 of his last 4 years when his scoring output also declined.

Yeahh, you’re ignoring that he was awful at FTs. As I’ve told you, he has a negative career TS Add, which means his TS% was below league average for his career. He actually did have a few individual years with positive TS Add (which is what we should generally *expect* from a big man), and lo and behold those were the years the Celtics league-relative offense actually wasn’t so bad. They were an awful offense in the years they had a center who couldn’t even score at league average efficiency despite only modest volume. Again, there’s a clear inference to be had here, but yet you refuse to even entertain it as a possibility and instead are making a super dubious assumption that allows you to downplay his teammates for something he was a major cause of.

Russell was not a good offensive player. He very likely made the Celtics offense worse. He also probably had more defensive impact than anyone ever. The net result is still a top-tier all-time great. I have him as #4 all time and with a fringe case for #1. But we shouldn’t try to downplay his teammates based on assumptions about Russell that are probably wrong.

[KayDee35]

Russell had a -148.9 TS Add for his career. That is comparing to his own era. He was a genuinely inefficient scorer in his own era, despite being a big man. He was a real negative as a scorer. And defense-first big men who score inefficiently despite being centers who should get some easy buckets are players that we generally see seriously negative offensive impact from. Of course, we can’t know for sure Russell’s offensive impact since we don’t have play-by-play data from that era. It’s possible his pretty good passing and his offensive rebounding made up for his inefficient scoring at the position that should be most efficient. But if you are basing your conclusions about his teammates on an assumption that Russell must not have been a weak offensive player, then I think you’re making a really dubious assumption.

And by the way, while we don’t have play-by-play data for Russell’s era, it is worth noting that the Celtics league-relative offensive rating got notably worse when Russell joined the team in 1957 and then stayed the same when he retired despite the team also losing their hall-of-fame, multi-time-all-NBA third-leading scorer Sam Jones. These are rough data points that are subject to noise, but they are consistent with Russell being a negative offensive player.

Russell's FG% was above league average for all his seasons except for 3 of his last 4 years when his scoring output also declined.

Yeahh, you’re ignoring that he was awful at FTs. As I’ve told you, he has a negative career TS Add, which means his TS% was below league average for his career. He actually did have a few individual years with positive TS Add (which is what we should generally *expect* from a big man), and lo and behold those were the years the Celtics league-relative offense actually wasn’t so bad. They were an awful offense in the years they had a center who couldn’t even score at league average efficiency despite only modest volume. Again, there’s a clear inference to be had here, but yet you refuse to even entertain it as a possibility and instead are making a super dubious assumption that allows you to downplay his teammates for something he was a major cause of.

Russell was not a good offensive player. He very likely made the Celtics offense worse. He also probably had more defensive impact than anyone ever. The net result is still a top-tier all-time great. I have him as #4 all time and with a fringe case for #1. But we shouldn’t try to downplay his teammates based on assumptions about Russell that are probably wrong.

First, there have been offenses that have led the league in Ortg with defensive big men at the helm which goes against your theory, which was a big reach anyway.
Second, Russell was the best passing big man of his generation (or second to Wilt if you ignore Wilt's bad years) and was often 2nd on the team in assists after the leading ball-handler.
Third, Boston led the league or was the top in Pace almost every year with Russell which was a continuation of what the team had do before.
Fourth, when there are data that can be isolated such as the first 1/3 of the 57 season, we don't see the pattern you claim.

It's more likely that the Celtics poorer Ortg arises from poorer shot selection or turnovers compared to other teams while playing at a record pace during the Cousy years and then lacked great guard passers after that.

The film we have of Russell shows him to be quite heavily involved in the offense. We also do not see his defender ignore him and double-team his teammates. In fact, his screening action and passes from the high post are quite effective in getting his teammates good looks. Are you seeing something different?

Edit:
Here's another strong data point against your theory that Russell was the reason for the Celtics relatively low Ortg. In 1963, The Celtics had all their offensive stars Cousy, Havlickek, Sam Jones, Heinsohn, Sanders, and Ramsey on the team. Their Pace was first in the league. Their Ortg was the worst in the league and their Drtg was the best. The team's Offensive Win Shares was also the lowest in the league at 12 wins. Their Defensive Win Shares led the league with 46 wins!

To suggest that Russell's presence was so negative that it countered the positive effect of their offensive stars so much that it led to them being the least efficient offense in the league strains credulity.

The more likely explanation is that offensive efficiency was not the priority of those Celtics. They preferred to run at the fastest pace they could and it did not always results in efficient shots given their personnel. Their highest pace was 136. To put that in context, the Steve Nash Suns with their Seven Seconds or Less offense played at a pace of 96 and the league leader in pace last season played at a pace of 103.

[NZB2323]

I think this argument kind of misses the distinct possibility that Russell was a significant reason the team was weak offensively. He was definitely not a good offensive player. And, more generally, we kind of know that defense-first big men tend to have some real negative impact offensively—especially when, like Russell, the points they score are inefficient despite being a non-volume-scoring big man who should get some easy buckets close to the basket. I think it’d be pretty surprising if he wasn’t a seriously negative-impact player offensively. Of course, he more than made up for that with elite defense, but I don’t really think the Celtics being weak offensively and Russell’s supporting cast having offensively-talented players are mutually exclusive if you just entertain the fairly-likely possibility that Russell was a seriously negative offensive player.

We can kind of see that.

The 56 Celtics without Russell went 39-33 and were 3rd out of 8th in offensive rating. The 57 Celtics with Russell went 44-28 and were 5th in offensive rating out of 8th.

The 69 Celtics were worse offensively after losing Russell, but Russell was 1 of 6 players that the Celtics lost. Sam Jones also retired and they lost players to an expansion draft.

Wilt was clearly better than Russell in 67, but he wasn’t able to replicate that, so I’d have Russell ranked higher on career.

But when comparing Russell to other all-time greats like Jordan, Hakeem, or LeBron, it’s unquestionable that Russell had a better supporting cast. In 1958 the all-NBA 1st team guards were Russell’s teammates. Jordan and LeBron had great teammates, but Wade wasn’t that great in 2013 and Pippen wasn’t that great in 1998. In the 1996 Finals Kemp was 1st in the series for GmSc and Payton was 3rd.

In the 69 Finals Russell didn’t win Finals MVP and he shot 39.7% from the field and 58.3% from the free throw line.

Havlicek averaged 28 and 11 and there were 5 other Celtics who had double digit scoring averages. Havlicek has a 2-0 Finals record without Russell.

- In 57 Russell played just 2/3 of the team's games. When Russell played that season, the Celtics were about a half-point better on offense and about a half-point better on defense. The facts do not support your narrative about Russell being bad on offense.

- Comparing team depth or talent across eras is a futile activity because it does not account for factors like the size of the league. Instead, a team's talent should be compared to the competition at that time. For example, MJ's #2 and #3 were always better than their counterparts on the other teams of that era.

- So yes, Russell did have 9 seasons where his teams were better than the league and they won 8 rings. He also had 4 seasons where he did not have the best team and won 3 rings. No one else has won 3 rings in 4 seasons where they were not the favorite.

- In 69, Boston upset a higher-seeded team in all 3 rounds to win the Championship. That was the lowest seed ever (#4) to win a ring at the time. The extent to which Russell anchored this team to a ring as player-coach is an all-time feat. Russell pulled off the biggest upset in NBA history and you're worried about Finals MVP going to Jerry West

Jordan’s #2 and #3 were not always better. Early in his career Bird had McHale and Parish and Thomas has Dumars and Rodman. Jordan did get to start his career with 2 all-NBA 1st team talents. The 84 Bulls went 27-55. Jordan also had to face Shaq with Penny and Horace Grant.

The claim that Jordan always had the best #2 or #3 is certainly debatable in a number of series. In the 97 playoffs Rodman averaged 4, 8, and 1, 47.9. TS%, 13.9 PER, -10.6 on/off. In the 98 playoffs Rodman averaged 5, 12, and 2, 45.9 TS%, 12.4 PER, -2.8 on/off. Rodman was 36 and washed out of the league afterwards. His best years were when he was in Detroit, outplaying Horace Grant in the playoffs. In the 96 Finals Kemp was 1st in the series for GmSc and Payton was 3rd.

Jordan never lost a playoff series because he got severely outplayed. In the 67 matchup with Wilt, Wilt clearly outplayed Russell:

Wilt: 22, 32, and 10, 55.6 FG%
Russell: 11, 23, and 6, 35.8 FG%

[Kingsway_fan]

Wilt --' no contest.

[KayDee35]

We can kind of see that.

The 56 Celtics without Russell went 39-33 and were 3rd out of 8th in offensive rating. The 57 Celtics with Russell went 44-28 and were 5th in offensive rating out of 8th.

The 69 Celtics were worse offensively after losing Russell, but Russell was 1 of 6 players that the Celtics lost. Sam Jones also retired and they lost players to an expansion draft.

Wilt was clearly better than Russell in 67, but he wasn’t able to replicate that, so I’d have Russell ranked higher on career.

But when comparing Russell to other all-time greats like Jordan, Hakeem, or LeBron, it’s unquestionable that Russell had a better supporting cast. In 1958 the all-NBA 1st team guards were Russell’s teammates. Jordan and LeBron had great teammates, but Wade wasn’t that great in 2013 and Pippen wasn’t that great in 1998. In the 1996 Finals Kemp was 1st in the series for GmSc and Payton was 3rd.

In the 69 Finals Russell didn’t win Finals MVP and he shot 39.7% from the field and 58.3% from the free throw line.

Havlicek averaged 28 and 11 and there were 5 other Celtics who had double digit scoring averages. Havlicek has a 2-0 Finals record without Russell.

- In 57 Russell played just 2/3 of the team's games. When Russell played that season, the Celtics were about a half-point better on offense and about a half-point better on defense. The facts do not support your narrative about Russell being bad on offense.

- Comparing team depth or talent across eras is a futile activity because it does not account for factors like the size of the league. Instead, a team's talent should be compared to the competition at that time. For example, MJ's #2 and #3 were always better than their counterparts on the other teams of that era.

- So yes, Russell did have 9 seasons where his teams were better than the league and they won 8 rings. He also had 4 seasons where he did not have the best team and won 3 rings. No one else has won 3 rings in 4 seasons where they were not the favorite.

- In 69, Boston upset a higher-seeded team in all 3 rounds to win the Championship. That was the lowest seed ever (#4) to win a ring at the time. The extent to which Russell anchored this team to a ring as player-coach is an all-time feat. Russell pulled off the biggest upset in NBA history and you're worried about Finals MVP going to Jerry West

Jordan’s #2 and #3 were not always better. Early in his career Bird had McHale and Parish and Thomas has Dumars and Rodman. Jordan did get to start his career with 2 all-NBA 1st team talents. The 84 Bulls went 27-55. Jordan also had to face Shaq with Penny and Horace Grant.

The claim that Jordan always had the best #2 or #3 is certainly debatable in a number of series. In the 97 playoffs Rodman averaged 4, 8, and 1, 47.9. TS%, 13.9 PER, -10.6 on/off. In the 98 playoffs Rodman averaged 5, 12, and 2, 45.9 TS%, 12.4 PER, -2.8 on/off. Rodman was 36 and washed out of the league afterwards. His best years were when he was in Detroit, outplaying Horace Grant in the playoffs. In the 96 Finals Kemp was 1st in the series for GmSc and Payton was 3rd.

Jordan never lost a playoff series because he got severely outplayed. In the 67 matchup with Wilt, Wilt clearly outplayed Russell:

Wilt: 22, 32, and 10, 55.6 FG%
Russell: 11, 23, and 6, 35.8 FG%

Wilt is the best physical specimen and the best individual player the NBA has ever seen. He was a world class athlete with a combination of speed and strength that the NBA hasn't witnessed before or since. He scored 100 in a game, led the league in assists from the center position just because he wanted to, held 72 records when he retired, and towered over his opposition.

He should have crushed Russell and Celtics everytime. But he didn't. In fact, for 4 years in a row, Wilt had home court over Russell in the playoffs and won only once with a team that set the record for regular season wins and also had the best Drtg (the only season that Bill's Celtics did not rank #1 in that category). That version of Wilt might actually be the best player the league has ever seen. But again, he won just once against Russelll despite having the advantage 4 times.

Wilt's teams went 17-4 in playoff series against the rest of the league but a paltry 1-7 against Russell. But that's not so bad, because the rest of the league went 1-22 against Russell during his career in playoff series

It's true that others had better #2 and #3 players like Bird's Celtics but one could argue that MJ never beat them until his sidekicks were better. It's true that Rodman wasn't great in 97 which is why they got a terrific pickup in Bison Dele who helped shore things up. Kukoc was 2nd in 6th man-of-the-year voting too.

MJ and Wilt fans weigh individual performance more heavily than team performance. Russell fans weigh team performance more heavily than individual performance. GOAT for MJ fans means something like Greatest (Individual Player who also won) of All Time while for Russell fans means something like Greatest (Teammate who contributed to winning) of All-Time.

A good example is Curry's assist numbers which were trending upwards peaking at 8.5apg but then slipping back to about 6apg after that year. Did Curry become a worse passer? Or did he sacrifice his stats (and role as primary ball-handler) to help the team out? The team became way better but Curry's passing stats got worse. The MJ metric would ding Curry's passing here but the Russell one would lift him up for being a great teammate. In fact, Curry gets bumped even higher by Russell fans because his off-ball action confuses the defense and leads to open looks for his teammates quite often but doesn't show up anywhere on the box score.

Russell wanted to win and his game was focused around it. Wilt went from a high-scoring machine to playing a lot more like Russell by focusing on defense, running the offense through the center position, and actively reducing his scoring. While Wilt's 50ppg season is a major feat, it's not a winning style of basketball so Russell fans are not overly impressed with it. Russell learned to play all 5 positions on offense so he could support his guys or fill in if they were struggling. He helped his teams run which meant he would often not be involved in the fastbreak except during the outlet pass. He didn't care one lick about his stats unlike Wilt and MJ. The ego-driven players tend to put themselves over the team and need someone like Phil Jackson to teach them how to play winning ball.

[AlexanderRight]

- In 57 Russell played just 2/3 of the team's games. When Russell played that season, the Celtics were about a half-point better on offense and about a half-point better on defense. The facts do not support your narrative about Russell being bad on offense.

- Comparing team depth or talent across eras is a futile activity because it does not account for factors like the size of the league. Instead, a team's talent should be compared to the competition at that time. For example, MJ's #2 and #3 were always better than their counterparts on the other teams of that era.

- So yes, Russell did have 9 seasons where his teams were better than the league and they won 8 rings. He also had 4 seasons where he did not have the best team and won 3 rings. No one else has won 3 rings in 4 seasons where they were not the favorite.

- In 69, Boston upset a higher-seeded team in all 3 rounds to win the Championship. That was the lowest seed ever (#4) to win a ring at the time. The extent to which Russell anchored this team to a ring as player-coach is an all-time feat. Russell pulled off the biggest upset in NBA history and you're worried about Finals MVP going to Jerry West

Jordan’s #2 and #3 were not always better. Early in his career Bird had McHale and Parish and Thomas has Dumars and Rodman. Jordan did get to start his career with 2 all-NBA 1st team talents. The 84 Bulls went 27-55. Jordan also had to face Shaq with Penny and Horace Grant.

The claim that Jordan always had the best #2 or #3 is certainly debatable in a number of series. In the 97 playoffs Rodman averaged 4, 8, and 1, 47.9. TS%, 13.9 PER, -10.6 on/off. In the 98 playoffs Rodman averaged 5, 12, and 2, 45.9 TS%, 12.4 PER, -2.8 on/off. Rodman was 36 and washed out of the league afterwards. His best years were when he was in Detroit, outplaying Horace Grant in the playoffs. In the 96 Finals Kemp was 1st in the series for GmSc and Payton was 3rd.

Jordan never lost a playoff series because he got severely outplayed. In the 67 matchup with Wilt, Wilt clearly outplayed Russell:

Wilt: 22, 32, and 10, 55.6 FG%
Russell: 11, 23, and 6, 35.8 FG%

Wilt is the best physical specimen and the best individual player the NBA has ever seen. He was a world class athlete with a combination of speed and strength that the NBA hasn't witnessed before or since. He scored 100 in a game, led the league in assists from the center position just because he wanted to, held 72 records when he retired, and towered over his opposition.

He should have crushed Russell and Celtics everytime. But he didn't. In fact, for 4 years in a row, Wilt had home court over Russell in the playoffs and won only once with a team that set the record for regular season wins and also had the best Drtg (the only season that Bill's Celtics did not rank #1 in that category). That version of Wilt might actually be the best player the league has ever seen. But again, he won just once against Russelll despite having the advantage 4 times.

Wilt's teams went 17-4 in playoff series against the rest of the league but a paltry 1-7 against Russell. But that's not so bad, because the rest of the league went 1-22 against Russell during his career in playoff series

It's true that others had better #2 and #3 players like Bird's Celtics but one could argue that MJ never beat them until his sidekicks were better. It's true that Rodman wasn't great in 97 which is why they got a terrific pickup in Bison Dele who helped shore things up. Kukoc was 2nd in 6th man-of-the-year voting too.

MJ and Wilt fans weigh individual performance more heavily than team performance. Russell fans weigh team performance more heavily than individual performance. GOAT for MJ fans means something like Greatest (Individual Player who also won) of All Time while for Russell fans means something like Greatest (Teammate who contributed to winning) of All-Time.

A good example is Curry's assist numbers which were trending upwards peaking at 8.5apg but then slipping back to about 6apg after that year. Did Curry become a worse passer? Or did he sacrifice his stats (and role as primary ball-handler) to help the team out? The team became way better but Curry's passing stats got worse. The MJ metric would ding Curry's passing here but the Russell one would lift him up for being a great teammate. In fact, Curry gets bumped even higher by Russell fans because his off-ball action confuses the defense and leads to open looks for his teammates quite often but doesn't show up anywhere on the box score.

Russell wanted to win and his game was focused around it. Wilt went from a high-scoring machine to playing a lot more like Russell by focusing on defense, running the offense through the center position, and actively reducing his scoring. While Wilt's 50ppg season is a major feat, it's not a winning style of basketball so Russell fans are not overly impressed with it. Russell learned to play all 5 positions on offense so he could support his guys or fill in if they were struggling. He helped his teams run which meant he would often not be involved in the fastbreak except during the outlet pass. He didn't care one lick about his stats unlike Wilt and MJ. The ego-driven players tend to put themselves over the team and need someone like Phil Jackson to teach them how to play winning ball.

I respect your knowledge of the history of the game. The reason Russell's Celtics finished in the bottom half of offensive rating a lot while simultaneously finishing in the upper half of PPG is because the Celtics ran a fast paced/fast break offensive immediately after transition which Russell deserves a lot of credit for because his shot blocking/rebounding outlet passes. I do think you're not giving his teammates enough credit for that though. It's not like all Russell had to do was get his hands on the ball and that automatically was a bucket on the other end. Those other All NBA players still had to beat their own man down the court after playing defense. They still had an all time guard to run the break down the court. They still had those other HOFs that had to finish past and over their own defenders after transition. But it is without question that Russell was the kick starter and the catalyst for a lot of that for securing the ball on defense and igniting that break quickly.

I also think it's worth nothing that while the Celtics were consistently in the bottom half of offensive rating, MJ's Bulls finished in the top 10 in offensive rating 9 times and and top 10 of Defensive Rating 10 times.

MJ as a player finished Top 2 in Win Shares and was mostly the top in every full season of his Chicago career. All but the year he broke his foot and the year he came back from baseball. In the same way Bill Russell was top 3 and mostly the top in Defensive Win Shares for every year of his career. The difference is, while Russell never sniffed the top of the league in offensive win shares, MJ finished Top 6 in defensive win shares 8 times. Only 1 season has Pippen finished higher than MJ in Defensive win shares for a season. My point being that MJ was an all time player on both sides of the ball. Nobody is calling Russell and all time offensive player. When talking about greatest offensive big men, Russell's name is not even brought up and it's not ONLY because he didn't have to. He also didn't have the necessary skill set to be a reliant go to scorer like Wilt did. If Russell did have that package, the Celtics wouldn't have finished in the sewer in offensive rating so many times.

It is not unreasonable to believe that if Wilt/MJ walked into the league with the same supporting cast as Russell, they too would have adapted to a more team friendly approach earlier if it meant more winning. They didn't have that luxury. It is very reasonable to believe that if Russell had walked into the same supporting cast as Wilt/MJ, that he would in fact have a harder time doing what MJ/Wilt were required to do offensively. It is certainly not unreasonable to believe that if MJ played in a 8-10 team league his whole career and not retired twice as the best player in the world that he would have considerably more rings. But I don't wanna be like Lebron fans and try to push a GOAT argument off hypotheticals.

The fact is, Russell does have a legit GOAT case and you argue it very well. I didn't think he had one before but you've convinced me he does. I don't feel my initial objections as strongly and have a greater appreciation for Russell after reading your takes. I personally will always take MJ over anyone on any day a 100 times out of a 100. But I will not blame anyone for taking Russell. I consider him the greatest defender and greatest leader ever and honestly those two things alone should have you in the discussion. He is technically the greatest winner ever and that's why the game is played.

[KayDee35]

Jordan’s #2 and #3 were not always better. Early in his career Bird had McHale and Parish and Thomas has Dumars and Rodman. Jordan did get to start his career with 2 all-NBA 1st team talents. The 84 Bulls went 27-55. Jordan also had to face Shaq with Penny and Horace Grant.

The claim that Jordan always had the best #2 or #3 is certainly debatable in a number of series. In the 97 playoffs Rodman averaged 4, 8, and 1, 47.9. TS%, 13.9 PER, -10.6 on/off. In the 98 playoffs Rodman averaged 5, 12, and 2, 45.9 TS%, 12.4 PER, -2.8 on/off. Rodman was 36 and washed out of the league afterwards. His best years were when he was in Detroit, outplaying Horace Grant in the playoffs. In the 96 Finals Kemp was 1st in the series for GmSc and Payton was 3rd.

Jordan never lost a playoff series because he got severely outplayed. In the 67 matchup with Wilt, Wilt clearly outplayed Russell:

Wilt: 22, 32, and 10, 55.6 FG%
Russell: 11, 23, and 6, 35.8 FG%

Wilt is the best physical specimen and the best individual player the NBA has ever seen. He was a world class athlete with a combination of speed and strength that the NBA hasn't witnessed before or since. He scored 100 in a game, led the league in assists from the center position just because he wanted to, held 72 records when he retired, and towered over his opposition.

He should have crushed Russell and Celtics everytime. But he didn't. In fact, for 4 years in a row, Wilt had home court over Russell in the playoffs and won only once with a team that set the record for regular season wins and also had the best Drtg (the only season that Bill's Celtics did not rank #1 in that category). That version of Wilt might actually be the best player the league has ever seen. But again, he won just once against Russelll despite having the advantage 4 times.

Wilt's teams went 17-4 in playoff series against the rest of the league but a paltry 1-7 against Russell. But that's not so bad, because the rest of the league went 1-22 against Russell during his career in playoff series

It's true that others had better #2 and #3 players like Bird's Celtics but one could argue that MJ never beat them until his sidekicks were better. It's true that Rodman wasn't great in 97 which is why they got a terrific pickup in Bison Dele who helped shore things up. Kukoc was 2nd in 6th man-of-the-year voting too.

MJ and Wilt fans weigh individual performance more heavily than team performance. Russell fans weigh team performance more heavily than individual performance. GOAT for MJ fans means something like Greatest (Individual Player who also won) of All Time while for Russell fans means something like Greatest (Teammate who contributed to winning) of All-Time.

A good example is Curry's assist numbers which were trending upwards peaking at 8.5apg but then slipping back to about 6apg after that year. Did Curry become a worse passer? Or did he sacrifice his stats (and role as primary ball-handler) to help the team out? The team became way better but Curry's passing stats got worse. The MJ metric would ding Curry's passing here but the Russell one would lift him up for being a great teammate. In fact, Curry gets bumped even higher by Russell fans because his off-ball action confuses the defense and leads to open looks for his teammates quite often but doesn't show up anywhere on the box score.

Russell wanted to win and his game was focused around it. Wilt went from a high-scoring machine to playing a lot more like Russell by focusing on defense, running the offense through the center position, and actively reducing his scoring. While Wilt's 50ppg season is a major feat, it's not a winning style of basketball so Russell fans are not overly impressed with it. Russell learned to play all 5 positions on offense so he could support his guys or fill in if they were struggling. He helped his teams run which meant he would often not be involved in the fastbreak except during the outlet pass. He didn't care one lick about his stats unlike Wilt and MJ. The ego-driven players tend to put themselves over the team and need someone like Phil Jackson to teach them how to play winning ball.

I respect your knowledge of the history of the game. The reason Russell's Celtics finished in the bottom half of offensive rating a lot while simultaneously finishing in the upper half of PPG is because the Celtics ran a fast paced/fast break offensive immediately after transition which Russell deserves a lot of credit for because his shot blocking/rebounding outlet passes. I do think you're not giving his teammates enough credit for that though. It's not like all Russell had to do was get his hands on the ball and that automatically was a bucket on the other end. Those other All NBA players still had to beat their own man down the court after playing defense. They still had an all time guard to run the break down the court. They still had those other HOFs that had to finish past and over their own defenders after transition. But it is without question that Russell was the kick starter and the catalyst for a lot of that for securing the ball on defense and igniting that break quickly.

I also think it's worth nothing that while the Celtics were consistently in the bottom half of offensive rating, MJ's Bulls finished in the top 10 in offensive rating 9 times and and top 10 of Defensive Rating 10 times.

MJ as a player finished Top 2 in Win Shares and was mostly the top in every full season of his Chicago career. All but the year he broke his foot and the year he came back from baseball. In the same way Bill Russell was top 3 and mostly the top in Defensive Win Shares for every year of his career. The difference is, while Russell never sniffed the top of the league in offensive win shares, MJ finished Top 6 in defensive win shares 8 times. Only 1 season has Pippen finished higher than MJ in Defensive win shares for a season. My point being that MJ was an all time player on both sides of the ball. Nobody is calling Russell and all time offensive player. When talking about greatest offensive big men, Russell's name is not even brought up and it's not ONLY because he didn't have to. He also didn't have the necessary skill set to be a reliant go to scorer like Wilt did. If Russell did have that package, the Celtics wouldn't have finished in the sewer in offensive rating so many times.

It is not unreasonable to believe that if Wilt/MJ walked into the league with the same supporting cast as Russell, they too would have adapted to a more team friendly approach earlier if it meant more winning. They didn't have that luxury. It is very reasonable to believe that if Russell had walked into the same supporting cast as Wilt/MJ, that he would in fact have a harder time doing what MJ/Wilt were required to do offensively. It is certainly not unreasonable to believe that if MJ played in a 8-10 team league his whole career and not retired twice as the best player in the world that he would have considerably more rings. But I don't wanna be like Lebron fans and try to push a GOAT argument off hypotheticals.

The fact is, Russell does have a legit GOAT case and you argue it very well. I didn't think he had one before but you've convinced me he does. I don't feel my initial objections as strongly and have a greater appreciation for Russell after reading your takes. I personally will always take MJ over anyone on any day a 100 times out of a 100. But I will not blame anyone for taking Russell. I consider him the greatest defender and greatest leader ever and honestly those two things alone should have you in the discussion. He is technically the greatest winner ever and that's why the game is played.

I do appreciate the kind words I'm glad I was able to change your view of Russell. I apologize if it seems I'm not giving Russell's Celtics teammates their due. He did in fact have terrific teammates. But they were terrific teammates who needed the defense, unselfishness, and team-first leadership of Russell to win it all. And with Russell, those teams believed they could beat anyone.

Those Celtics did not have a cakewalk to the title each year either. They had 10 deciding game 7s and one deciding Game 5. They went 11-0 in those deciding games! Russell averaged 18.6 pgg and 32rpg in those game 7s.

Speaking of teammates, Havlicek was a great player but not a winner without Russell or someone similar. Luckily for the Celtics, they got Dave Cowens a year after Russell left. Cowens won Rookie of the Year, won MVP two years later, and was always one of the best defenders in the league during his career. He's the only player not named Wilt or Russell in the top 10 for DWS in a single season.

That Celtics team with Cowens, Havlicek, and Jo Jo White did not have the same level of playoff success as prior Celtics teams.
- '72 playoffs: Lost to Knicks in an upset.
- '73 playoffs: Won 68 games! Best record in the league. Lost to Knicks in another upset.
- '74 playoffs: Beat the Bucks to win the Championship.
- ' 75 playoffs: Had home court against the Bullets and lost.
- '76 playoffs: Beat the Suns for another Championship.

2 rings in 5 years is amazing but it's not on par with the Russell dynasty. And all 3 losses coming while they had home court does not look good.

You are absolutely correct that Russell was not a good scorer, he was about average compared to the other big men of his time not named Wilt. I cannot agree with the hypothetical, however, that Wilt would have adopted the same approach as Russell had their situations been flipped. Big egos are the norm for the average player in the league. Superstars have egos that dwarf those. Getting them to buy into a team-oriented approach and commit to it long-term has never been easy. Phil Jackson talks about this in his struggles with Jordan and Kobe in getting them to put the team first. Wilt was unable to embrace the team-first concept until later in his career and he had trouble sticking with it.

Russell was the leading scorer on his college teams that won back-to-back titles, had a 55-game winning streak, and became the first college team to win a championship without being defeated for the entire season. But he always saw his job as that of making his team better and that always involved making his teammates better.

Russell said, "The most important measure of how good a game I played was how much better I'd made my teammates play."

The biggest difference between Russell and everybody else is that he took responsibility for how his teammates played. The very excuse that Wilt fans use to discredit his losses that goes something like, "Wilt had a great series but the rest of his team sucked" is an unacceptable excuse for Bill Russell.

I think multiple players, including Jordan, have a legit case for GOAT depending on how you weigh different factors. But no one else has a legit case for GTOAT - Greatest Teammate of All Time. That title belongs to Russell by a wide margin.

You do have very valid points regarding MJ's status on the GOAT ladder. His individual performance is in the mix for the best ever. And once he bought into Phil's triangle and team-oriented approach, he was easily the best around during his time.

I will grant you MJ's amazing stats all across the board. His defense was great but guard defense on good teams gets overrated by metrics. But Jordan was not a better defender than Pippen once they started winning, especially in the playoffs. Pippen had more energy to expend and greater versatility on the defensive end that made him more valuable than Jordan on that side of the ball. That's not a knock on Jordan, who was probably the best guard defender of his era until Payton showed up, I'm simply giving Pippen his due.

I have trouble agreeing with your hypotheticals regarding Jordan. If he didn't retire the first time, that means deep playoff runs for those Bulls teams and additional wear and tear on all the guys, not just MJ. Those Bulls were exhausted after the first three-peat. I'm not saying they couldn't have won 4-in-a-row but each consecutive title gets progressively harder if you're bringing back the same roster. I can see 4, maybe 5 titles before they ran into injuries, salary cap issues, tuning out the coach, teams being built to stop them, Phil wanting to retire sooner, etc. That is not a recipe for second three-peat. Also, Phil was 100% set on retirement after the 2nd 3-peat and MJ's impact is not the same without Phil.

The other hypothetical of playing in an condensed league of 8-11 teams is that Jordan would have faced only the best 8-11 players at every position. Take a look at rosters from the 90s, choose only the best 25%-33% of those players and now construct your teams. The Bulls get better but so does every other team. More importantly, Jordan now has to deal with a shot-blocking center almost every night (Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Mourning, Shaq, Mutumbo, etc.) and a solid defensive guard as well (Payton, Richmond, Robertson, Kidd, Penny, Derek Harper, Eddie Jones, etc.). Players also get to play against each other 8--12 times a season, so you have multiple opportunities to test adjustments during the season. It simply does not add up to say that anyone would do better in a condensed league. Everyone performs better in a league with more teams and the gap between the top talent and the bottom talent widens based on league size. Ergo, the gap between a top talent like MJ (or Wilt) and their defenders grows as the league grows.

That said, Jordan is easily the best of his era as I've said multiple times. The other MVPs of that era; Olajuwon, Barkley, Malone, and Robinson are all amazing players in their own right but are not in the same conversation with Jordan. Two 3-peats is an amazing feat. All the individual accolades are phenomenal as well.

However, Jordan's commitment to his teams faltered twice when they were strong contenders for the championship. MJ was still collecting his salary from the Bulls while playing baseball. Jordan also didn't learn to trust his teammates until Phil Jackson shows up and has to explicitly teach it to MJ, which, to his credit, MJ did learn. Jordan's treatment of his teammates wasn't always the best and while it did push some to perform better, it discouraged others. Jordan's time on the Wizards involved poor front office moves from trades to coaching changes to undermining the confidence of young, impressionable teammates. That is a giant blemish on Jordan's character that cannot be ignored. Despite having Phil's guidance earlier during his own career, Jordan took a very different approach to helping his team. MJ without Phil isn't as impactful and sometimes has a negative impact.

I absolutely adore the MJ of the two 3-peats. That guy could be my GOAT. But if you throw in early selfishness, undermining the team concept, walking way from the game twice, and his Washington years, I do NOT want that guy.

The scary thing is, MJ's great years are so amazing that they make him a favorite for GOAT among so many. If Phil arrives sooner or if MJ doesn't retire twice, we may have a very different set of facts on our hands. But taking the entirety of the facts as they are, MJ's case is diminished by these other factors.