Why do people keep saying Bill Russell is of the GOATs?

[payton2kemp]

Basketball is an urban sport and African Americans were a rural demographic. Until that changes in the 1950s the whole segregation argument is pretty weak. Do people really think that Jim Crow laws existed in the North East which is where basketball existed?

The anti-segregation narrative is false, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Fives. Black players were systemically excluded from playing basetball. It's more than likely that many of the players (prior to the merger) could have played in the NBA as evidenced by the relatively quick absorption of black players over the next few decades in spite of the racial barriers that existed.

"The Black Fives era ended in the late 1940s with the gradual integration of white professional basketball leagues, led by the National Basketball League. When the NBL merged with the all-white and racially segregated Basketball Association of America in 1949, they formed the National Basketball Association (NBA). In 1950 the NBA signed its first African American players. Early black players in the NBA experienced continual racism and racial tension from fans, teammates, opposing players, coaches, referees, and owners. However, they persevered and the situation gradually became easier as the league drafted more and more African Americans.

Nonetheless, even those who made the NBA after integration began were forced to be role players, concentrating on rebounding and defense. Black pros did not get a chance to showcase their talents in the league until the arrival of Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain."

Wow ... you don't think Bill Russell made a living (playing basketball)? He was very well paid. I don't know about where you'd find percentiles for US salaries but I dare say there weren't that many 6-digit salaries in the mid sixties.

We also have to keep in mind that players risk losing earnings to injury and many have to start different careers after they retire, so you can't just look at what they made over their careers compared to the average wage at that time (whereas today salaries are much higher to compensate for those risks).

I never said Russell didn't make a living playing basketball, I said salaries were much lower back then. The average player had significantly less incentive to play. Adjusted for inflation they were significantly lower back then. When Russell played salaries ranged from $6,000 (~$52,000 in 1956) to $20,000 ($141,000 in 1967) on average, http://www.apbr.org/apbr-faq.html. Today the median salary is around $2m (median is a better yardstick but I couldn't find that going back) and average is $4.1m. People estimate the average NBA player plays for 4.8 years, so using some crude math (and rounding it to 5), you're looking at ~$10m (median) to ~$20m (average) in earnings, without counting endorsements. For journeyman making the NBA is significantly more attractive today then it was and for superstars much more so.

THE NBA SALARY CAP/SALARY MINIMUM/AVERAGE SALARY
Season Salary Cap Team Minimum Avg Salary
1946-47 - None None $ 4,500
1956-57 - None None $ 6,000
1966-67 - None None $ 13,000
1967-68 - None None $ 20,000
1972-73 - None None $ 90,000
1976-77 - None None $ 130,000
1977-78 - None None $ 143,000
1979-80 - None None $ 173,000
1980-81 - None None $ 189,000
1981-82 - None None $ 218,000
1982-83 - None None $ 246,000
1983-84 - None None $ 275,000
1984-85 - $ 3,600,000 $ 2,900,000 $ 340,000
1985-86 - $ 4,233,000 $ 3,400,000 $ 395,000
1986-87 - $ 4,945,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 440,000
1987-88 - $ 6,164,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 510,000
1988-89 - $ 7,232,000 $ 5,900,000 $ 601,000
1989-90 - $ 9,802,000 $ 7,900,000 $ 748,000
1990-91 - $11,871,000 $ 9,610,000 $1,034,000
1991-92 - $12,500,000 $10,120,000 $1,202,000
1992-93 - $14,000,000 $11,340,000 $1,348,000
1993-94 - $15,100,000 $12,300,000 $1,558,000
1994-95 - $15,964,000 $12,880,000 $1,800,000
1995-96 - $23,000,000 $17,250,000 $2,100,000
1996-97 - $24,300,000 $18,225,000 ???
1997-98 - $26,900,000 $20,175,000 $2,350,000
1998-99 - $30,000,000 ??? $2,400,000
1999-00 - $34,000,000 ??? $2,947,000
2000-01 - $35,500,000 $4,200,000
2001-02 - $42,500,000 $4,500,000
2002-03 - $40,270,000 $4,546,000
2003-04 - $43,840,000 $4,917,000
2004-05 - $43,870,000 $3,864,241
2005-06 - $49,500,000 $4,037,899
2006-07 - $53,136,000

[trex_8063]

Why do people keep saying Bill Russell is of the GOATs?

Short answer:
Because he is.

Longer answer:
Because even if you chose to discount his career accomplishments by a significant amount (due to strength of era), he still rates out pretty high.
Also, don't buy into the hot tub time machine method for comparing eras (Scalabrine? Seriously?). Consider context: era-specific training, coaching, game strategy/theory/stylistics, medical care, game rules, game popularity, greats one may have had to model their game after, etc. How would someone like Scalabrine look if he had simply been born circa 1930 with all of those circumstances? Worst case: he never even plays basketball, because the popularity, media-exposure, and financial up-shot of the game at the time doesn't succeed in drawing him to it. Best case: maybe he has a career similar to a Clyde Lovellette or Rudy LaRusso (even LaRusso was more athletic than Scal, though); which is to say, "good", but hardly "dominating".


Longer answer (assuming we're not all being trolled by this thread):
Once you stop using the time machine method of considering past eras, and instead consider context and circumstances of the time, I should think you'd begin to think of the 1950's as merely a significantly weaker (but decidedly NOT irrelevant) era. And anyway, the majority of Russell's career took place in the 60's, during which the game was becoming more integrated and quite competitive. Other players present to some degree within that decade: Wilt, Baylor, West, Robertson, Thurmond, Bellamy, Reed, Wilkens, Frazier/Hayes/Unseld/Monroe all entered league during his last two seasons.

Russell was limited offensively, no doubt. I think the nearest modern context comparison is probably Joakim Noah, though even Noah can hit his FT's and maybe nail an open 17-footer (which Russell couldn't do). otoh, Russell's athleticism would likely make him better in transition (+/- cleaning up on offensive glass). Wes Unseld might be an even closer offensive comparison. Basically good high-post passing big man, good screen setter, can clean up some easy buckets. Otherwise limited offensively, but at least plays within his capabilities.

Defensively, however, perhaps try to think of Russell as a Garnett/Olajuwon hybrid. Russell was 6'10" (likely be listed as 6'11" today) with long arms, and fantastic speed, quickness, and leaping ability. Don't believe that? Check out this video:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWelUNrJUMM[/youtube]
Note that the time elapsed from when he takes off from one end of the court to where he is finishing at the other end is a mere 4 seconds (this while dribbling and leaping OVER a defender).

His length, athleticism, and lateral quickness is very analogous to Kevin Garnett. Given his defensive IQ, in modern context I think he could be elite at hedging the high pick-and-roll and recovering (similar to Garnett), he doesn't leave you screwed if he gets caught on a switch guarding a perimeter player (similar to Garnett), he's an elite positional low-post defender who gives constant intensity (similar to Garnett). In other words, he could be very analogous to Kevin Garnett.....except a better shot-blocker.

There's little question that Russell was the---era-specific, at least---biggest impact defender ever. And while I'd agree Russell probably can't elicit that same level of impact in ALL eras (I don't think anyone could elicit that level of defensive impact in the modern day), the picture I've painted above certainly has the potential of being a GOAT-level defender in any era.

And then there are intangibles to consider (and more and more I'm beginning to think these things are of pretty substantial importance). Wilt was the most statistically dominant player in NBA history; but he was often outright poisonous as a teammate. It's that aspect that has kept the Wilt vs. Russell debate alive for decades. I'd recommend The Rivalry: Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, and the Golden Age of Basketball by John Taylor as a good read on the topic (as well as other aspects of late 50's/60's pro basketball). It's a really a pretty good historical read.
Russell was a guy who provided constant energy, intensity, poise, and a team-first philosophy. That's a valuable presence both on and off the court.

In a nut-shell, I think all of the above is indicative he certainly belongs among the GOATs.

[Albanian Damien]

Michael Rapport got a lot of hate for pointing out the obvious, Bill Russell played in a league of castoffs, which is the only reason he has all those championships, http://nesn.com/2014/10/michael-rapapor ... ple-video/.

There were like 4 guys that were near 7 feet back then and the level of play was atrocious. Despite being able to grab boards based on the sheer fact that everyone else was shorter and less athletic, he had a FG% under 50%.

Watch the film of him, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40iKnaUjz_w and compare it to players that didn't play with a bunch of used-car salesmen. Go to 8:59 and look at the ball movement in the 1960s--imagine if the Spurs played like this, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L78v25cinYI.

MJ, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAr6oAKieHk.
Kobe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZfJJwsRaiE.
Shaq, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewBnHq04CRg.
Duncan, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZc3uq56JKU.

Let's go back to that era:
1) There was no three-point shot, so spacing was tighter making it easier to get blocks and rebounds, especially for a guy with that kind of height.
2) Players didn't have anywhere near the athleticism and ball control of athletes today. There is no 1960s Russell Westbrook.
3) The game was way less complex. You basically have the same level of sophistication in 1960 that you get in high school today.
4) The poor shot selection and fast pace meant that there were a million rebounds and no one boxed out or positioned like they do today. A 10-second shot clock would have worked with the way they played back then.
5) You had fewer teams and (relatively) he played on a stacked Celtics team.
6) There was no concept of footwork for big guys back then. Show me anything Russell could do that rivalled the Dream Shake, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxDopaqTxiY.

As Rapport says, Brian Scalabrine could have dominated back then. Let's stop pretending that Bill Russell's career is anything more than what happens when a man plays among boys.

To be honest I don't necessarily disagree with a lot of what you were saying. However, I thought it got way to exaggerated when you said Scalabrine would have dominated

Here's the thing there's usually two camps of people. One of the camps argue that the game was much harder to play because of the fast pace, regulations and aggressive nature of defenders. The other camp argues that today's players are better athletes, much more tactical in their approach to the game, and have a larger variety of moves. I don't think neither camp is necessarily wrong.

The playing style has changed tremendously since those videos you showed us of Russell. Also I agree with the notion that most stars from today would dominate even more tremendously than Russell did. However, here's why it's not fair to look at it from that perception and why Russell has to be considered one of the GOATs.

This is Bill Russell:

If you can't tell thats one of the original Ferraris, it's design looks simple and primitive but at the time there was no car that could match it's standard. It had speed and precision that blew the cars out of the water. Not to mention that it was also very aesthetically pleasing

This is LeBron James:

This is one of the newer models of the ferrari. It's much faster and much more powerful than it's predecessor. It's design has completely evolved into a whole new shape. It's also much more aesthetically pleasing than it's predecessor.

Although the new ferrari has evolved to an entirely different level, it still has it's design features based on the older model. That's because without the older model there is no new sleeker looking ferrari. Without Bill Russell there is no LeBron James. This is why you have to put him as one of the GOATs. You can't compare talents across time(unless of course they played relatively similar time periods I.E. Jordan and Kobe). You can only compare them in relation as to what they did during THEIR time in the league. Russell did as much as anybody, he only playd 13 Years but this is what he accomplished:

12 x All Star
11 x Champ (8 straight, and 3 as a player-coach)
5 x MVP
5 x Rebounding Champ

Career Avg of 15/22/4

Not to mention the countless accolades they didn't even have back then (i.e. Finals MVP, DPOY)
on top of stats they didn't track (i.e. steals, and blocks)

Because Bill would have surely dominated in those categories as well.

That is why Russell HAS to be considered one of the GOATs.

[JeepCSC]

But by that logic, Mikan has to be considered a GOAT. He was even more dominant in his era and arguably was more involved in shaping the way we see basketball. There is a limit to how much era dominance can take you in a GOAT discussion.

[NO-KG-AI]

^By what measure was Mikan more dominant in his era?

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

My GOAT must pass the hypothetical time machine test. I have seen 1960s film and 1960s players were not the equals of modern players and modern conditioning and modern coaching would not equalize them.

I think some older guys refuse to see the inferiority of the game that they loved because of their loyalty to that love. Some younger guys seem to think only the current era ever existed and that everybody in the past was inferior.

Some stat geeks want to ignore the basketball games entirely and only look at stats.

I need to take note of the emotional mistakes that other people are making and be wary of me overrating the 1980s NBA for the same reasons that some people are overrating the 1960s NBA.

Here's the thing there's usually two camps of people. One of the camps argue that the game was much harder to play because of the fast pace, regulations and aggressive nature of defenders.

I believed a lot of those type of statements from fans who actually watched 1960s basketball in the 1960s until I watched 1960s basketball on film.

Maybe you could slip an elbow to the face past the refs more easily in the 1960s but they were calling an awful lot of ticky tack fouls in the the late 1960s.

1999-2003 Shaq would have fouled out in the first half with offensive fouls if the game was called by late 1960s refs.

I need to watch more early 1960 and watch 1950s ball. From the mid 1960s to now the the least rough eras were the current era (say 2009 to now) and the late 1960s.

The early 1960s had a faster pace and worse shot selection than they later 1960s. The extended rests during the slow free throw process to some degree gave the players a chance to catch their breath after frenetic fast break basketball.

The fast break was so important because the half court offenses were so horribly inefficient.

The other camp argues that today's players are better athletes, much more tactical in their approach to the game, and have a larger variety of moves. I don't think neither camp is necessarily wrong.

The playing style has changed tremendously since those videos you showed us of Russell.

Russell was famous for making the NBA realize the potency of shot blocking.

By the mid to late 1960s when you would think players would have adjusted to the presence of shot blockers I still saw so many shots with low releases and low trajectories that left me wondering how these guys expected their shots to not be blocked. Sure Russell bocked their shots but most modern NBA small forwards, power forwards or centers also would have blocked their shots. The fact that players were throwing up very blockable shots indicates that Russel, Wilt and the other shot blockers were not around in large enough numbers for enough years to get the players to stop shooting very blockable shots.

I went to the Louvre and looked at the Mona Lisa. I thought yes the smile is interesting but this is one of the technically least talented paintings in the Lourve. I don't care about the hype I saw what I saw and I didn't need to be an art expert. Then somebody explained to me that the significance of the Mona Lisa and da Vinci in general is that he was a transitional artist in the history of painting. The claim was made that da Vinci helped more modern sophisticated painting emerge.

I am OK with honoring da Vinci for changing the art of painting and for being one of the greatest painters of his time but considering da Vinci one of the greatest painters of all time is just wrong. It turns out that although I came to the conclusion that da Vinci was not a great painter on my own using the eye test; many other people more sophisticated about art than me had reached the same conclusion.

Also I agree with the notion that most stars from today would dominate even more tremendously than Russell did. However, here's why it's not fair to look at it from that perception and why Russell has to be considered one of the GOATs.

When we are talking about GOAT do we mean the Greatest player Of All Time who would be the best player in any era, or do we mean the winningest, or the most dominant of his era or the player who most changed the game.

I can't Separate Russell from Red Auerbach and the other Celtics when trying to figure out the intangibles that made the Celtic team unbeatable. Clearly that team had something going for it in terms of knowing how to win and wanting to win.

If GOAT means player with the most championships then the contest is over and Russell wins.

My eye test has not made it clear to me that Russell is a top ten player. I still want to see more younger Bill Russell.

How can the Russell is Goat faction be sure that Bill Russell is a better basketball player than Serge Ibaka or Marcus Camby?

[KilloJoeX]

Nonsense and offensive comments

[Albanian Damien]

here's the thing though I definitely see what you're saying and I'm not disagreeing. I'm in the camp that guys like Dwight Howard, and Serge Ibaka could just as easily have dominated as much as Bill back then but it's not even fair to say that because they're games were shaped BY Russell. That's why it's not fair to argue that. Of course you're going to be better than the guy your games based on. However, people here have to remember that in about 20 or 30 years people are going to look at guys that are playing today and think they are cave man as well. In fact in about 2050 RealGMers will probably be saying things like:

LeBron was just too physically advanced, he'd never dominate as much today
The euro step was such a simple and primitive move, it would never work on today's defenders.
Stephen Curry definitely isn't as good a shooter as player xyz, they didn't even have the 4 point line back then

etc.

So I think it's only fair that we respect the old timers the way we're going to want our current batch of players to be respected by future generations

[trex_8063]

But by that logic, Mikan has to be considered a GOAT. He was even more dominant in his era and arguably was more involved in shaping the way we see basketball. There is a limit to how much era dominance can take you in a GOAT discussion.

That Mikan played in a weaker era than Russell is a big consideration here, though. Basketball probably underwent more change between late 40's/early-mid 50's and the mid-60's than it has since.

Longevity is another divider between Russell and Mikan.

[Owly]

Wow ... you don't think Bill Russell made a living (playing basketball)? He was very well paid. I don't know about where you'd find percentiles for US salaries but I dare say there weren't that many 6-digit salaries in the mid sixties.

We also have to keep in mind that players risk losing earnings to injury and many have to start different careers after they retire, so you can't just look at what they made over their careers compared to the average wage at that time (whereas today salaries are much higher to compensate for those risks).

I never said Russell didn't make a living playing basketball,

You didn't say Russell specifically, but you implied through this generality.

Salaries also play a part in who plays the game. While they were lower in the 80s then today, you could still make a living playing basketball by then, which wasn't the case back then.

Of course the awkward, vague phrasing gives some wiggle room.

In any case as per my previous post the case as presented here has been put with too much hyperbole to be likely to generate reasonable and productive debate (though more likely here than on other boards, and looking at it I see some reasonable arguments).

Nonetheless, even those who made the NBA after integration began were forced to be role players, concentrating on rebounding and defense. Black pros did not get a chance to showcase their talents in the league until the arrival of Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain."

1954- Ray Felix All-Star, Baltimore Bullets leading scorer ...

Certainly it has been argued that many of the BAA's early black players were forced into role player status, still a more nuanced position would be more helpful (Maurice Stokes was also a star before Russell, Baylor or Chamberlain).

[payton2kemp]

When we are talking about GOAT do we mean the Greatest player Of All Time who would be the best player in any era, or do we mean the winningest, or the most dominant of his era or the player who most changed the game.

I can't Separate Russell from Red Auerbach and the other Celtics when trying to figure out the intangibles that made the Celtic team unbeatable. Clearly that team had something going for it in terms of knowing how to win and wanting to win.

I think this hits the nail on the head. Russell played when basketball was in its infancy--he was great then, but he benefited from people who didn't adjust over years, forget game-to-game. Red was the Pop of that era, but he did it by clogging toilets, taking advantage of the color barrier, and identifying great talent. Today top players not only have to be physically talented but also watch film and adjust their game constantly. The Spurs dominated the Heat last year because of how everything came together--they had great players but Pop was always a step ahead.

The next generation of players will probably be better than those today, but the leaps will likely become smaller and smaller. Today scouts look for the next Lebron in junior school, metrics have made massive changes in how the game is played (i.e. smart teams don't take long 2 pointers), and the game is so much more popular then it was in the 1960s and 1970s. We don't really question if MJ could excel today the way we do with Russell because many of the big leaps in skill and athleticism already took place by the time he played. MJ developed his post game as he aged and had a virtually unblockable fadeaway that was foreign to players when Russell played. Back then people smoked and played sports, which is unfathomable today.

Do we really thing that a strategy of throwing up lots of shots would work today by simply tiring the other team out? For that to work you need to have a pretty big gap in athleticism, one that probably isn't feasible today. That's not to say that Russell couldn't adapt but given that he was a horrible FT shooter, it's likely that he would be even more limited on the offensive side today then he was back then (as there wasn't as much spacing).

On the defensive end he would still probably be a good shot blocker, but as the previous poster said, a lot of his blocks were shots that no one would put up today. This is where the speed and ball control of a Westbrook, Dwade, Kobe (younger), MJ would make it more difficult for Russell to swat everything in sight. To address the "those are outlier" argument we have to keep in mind that average players aren't driving to the hoop very often if they want to stay on the floor.

Although the new ferrari has evolved to an entirely different level, it still has it's design features based on the older model. That's because without the older model there is no new sleeker looking ferrari. Without Bill Russell there is no LeBron James. This is why you have to put him as one of the GOATs. You can't compare talents across time(unless of course they played relatively similar time periods I.E. Jordan and Kobe). You can only compare them in relation as to what they did during THEIR time in the league.

Using this criteria, he is definitely a GOAT, however, GOAT means "all-time". He might have been the most dominant player in his era--I think its hard to say that anyone other than Wilt is close in that regard--but that isn't what GOAT means.

I see your point with the Ferrari analogy, but the bottom line is that the new Ferrari will outperform the old one. It's true that the new one wouldn't be what it is without its predecessors, but that doesn't change the fact the new is superior from a performance standpoint.

In 20 years there very well could be a player that makes Lebron or MJ look pedestrian. That player will, rightfully, move ahead of them in a GOAT discussion (assuming Lebron continues his current trajectory). That doesn't diminish what these players accomplished--it's just progress.

At his best, MJ and (now) Lebron are not only guys that can take over offensively, but also on the defensive end. Russell, who, for the most part, is lauded for his defense, is easier to replace than many of the other guys in the GOAT discussion. It would a lot easier to find a defensive stopper that could do most of what Russell did then it is to get an offensive star, which is one reason offensive stars tend to get more attention. Those like Melo (who is a a sieve) aren't who I am talking about--but guys like Kobe, Wade, Dirk are much harder to replace then guy who just protects the rim and clogs up spacing on the offensive side. How much more valuable would a prime Bill Russell be if you could have Tyson Chandler in his prime, a healthy Bogut, etc.

[Albanian Damien]

Although the new ferrari has evolved to an entirely different level, it still has it's design features based on the older model. That's because without the older model there is no new sleeker looking ferrari. Without Bill Russell there is no LeBron James. This is why you have to put him as one of the GOATs. You can't compare talents across time(unless of course they played relatively similar time periods I.E. Jordan and Kobe). You can only compare them in relation as to what they did during THEIR time in the league.

Using this criteria, he is definitely a GOAT, however, GOAT means "all-time". He might have been the most dominant player in his era--I think its hard to say that anyone other than Wilt is close in that regard--but that isn't what GOAT means.

I see your point with the Ferrari analogy, but the bottom line is that the new Ferrari will outperform the old one. It's true that the new one wouldn't be what it is without its predecessors, but that doesn't change the fact the new is superior from a performance standpoint.

In 20 years there very well could be a player that makes Lebron or MJ look pedestrian. That player will, rightfully, move ahead of them in a GOAT discussion (assuming Lebron continues his current trajectory). That doesn't diminish what these players accomplished--it's just progress.

At his best, MJ and (now) Lebron are not only guys that can take over offensively, but also on the defensive end. Russell, who, for the most part, is lauded for his defense, is easier to replace than many of the other guys in the GOAT discussion. It would a lot easier to find a defensive stopper that could do most of what Russell did then it is to get an offensive star, which is one reason offensive stars tend to get more attention. Those like Melo (who is a a sieve) aren't who I am talking about--but guys like Kobe, Wade, Dirk are much harder to replace then guy who just protects the rim and clogs up spacing on the offensive side. How much more valuable would a prime Bill Russell be if you could have Tyson Chandler in his prime, a healthy Bogut, etc.

I addressed this one post prior so I'll just post it again:

here's the thing though I definitely see what you're saying and I'm not disagreeing. I'm in the camp that guys like Dwight Howard, and Serge Ibaka could just as easily have dominated as much as Bill back then but it's not even fair to say that because they're games were shaped BY Russell. That's why it's not fair to argue that. Of course you're going to be better than the guy your games based on. However, people here have to remember that in about 20 or 30 years people are going to look at guys that are playing today and think they are cave man as well. In fact in about 2050 RealGMers will probably be saying things like:

LeBron was just too physically advanced, he'd never dominate as much today
The euro step was such a simple and primitive move, it would never work on today's defenders.
Stephen Curry definitely isn't as good a shooter as player xyz, they didn't even have the 4 point line back then

etc.

So I think it's only fair that we respect the old timers the way we're going to want our current batch of players to be respected by future generations

Honestly, when you try to compare basketball players, winning and rings inevitably take up about 50% of the argument if not more. I mean let's look at the most polarizing player on realGM as an example, Kevin Garnett. If you compare Russell to KG Bill is completely out classed as an individual player. In fact, like I said in another thread I think KG was easily one of the top 10 individual talents the league has seen. However, to put him top 10 would be unheard of by most. Thats because, at the end of the day the hardware drives the discussion in all basketball debates and when you have 11 Rings yelling your faces its impossible not to listen

Not that I necessarily agree with the criteria I've just learned to accept it.

[JeepCSC]

^By what measure was Mikan more dominant in his era?

He wasn't routinely placed on the second-team All-league squad for one thing.

[JeepCSC]

That Mikan played in a weaker era than Russell is a big consideration here, though. Basketball probably underwent more change between late 40's/early-mid 50's and the mid-60's than it has since.

Longevity is another divider between Russell and Mikan.

Therein lies the rub. Eras are factored in, it is just there is a disagreement on which eras and to what degree. Incidentally, many of the big changes during and after the Mikan era were because of Mikan.

[NO-KG-AI]

^By what measure was Mikan more dominant in his era?

He wasn't routinely placed on the second-team All-league squad for one thing.

How much weight does that carry, when he won MVP in some of those years?

[JeepCSC]

^By what measure was Mikan more dominant in his era?

He wasn't routinely placed on the second-team All-league squad for one thing.

How much weight does that carry, when he won MVP in some of those years?

It means Russell was considered one of the top 2 centers in the league. Mikan had no rivals. He was the Wilt and Russell of the early NBA.

[trex_8063]

He wasn't routinely placed on the second-team All-league squad for one thing.

How much weight does that carry, when he won MVP in some of those years?

It means Russell was considered one of the top 2 centers in the league. Mikan had no rivals. He was the Wilt and Russell of the early NBA.

I realize I'm being a bit hyperbolic with this following statement, but by this same "no rivals" logic, we might conclude that James Harden this year is having bigger impact than prime Wade did; because Harden presently doesn't really have a rival for best SG in the league, but Wade always did (Kobe).

[JeepCSC]

Well, we don't usually look at domination and impact positionally, this isn't football. I muddied the water when mentioning all-league teams (which are done positionally), though my main point was only that Russell had a rival for best player in the league while he played. Mikan did not, and to that end Mikan dominated his league more than Russell did his.

[Albanian Damien]

Well, we don't usually look at domination and impact positionally, this isn't football. I muddied the water when mentioning all-league teams (which are done positionally), though my main point was only that Russell had a rival for best player in the league while he played. Mikan did not, and to that end Mikan dominated his league more than Russell did his.

if anything that's an argument in favor of russell. Russell has more rivals AND accomplished more.

[JeepCSC]

Mikan played 6 full NBA seasons, and won 5 titles. In the other year, he played the final playoff series with a broken leg and still was the series leading scorer. Russell accomplished more thanks in part to longevity, not from being more dominant in his league.

To be clear I'm not arguing that Mikan should be above Russell as far as players. But the reason Mikan is not considered a GOAT candidate is because his era is deemed weak and one questions if he is portable at all. Era dominance both personally and team-wise, as well his helping to revolutionize the game are nice thoughts, but don't amount to a hill of beans in the grand scheme of things. Russell skeptics aren't penalizing to the same extent that Mikan is because the era is stronger and the questions about portability are less a concern. But the template for the skepticism remains the same.