Did Jordan play in a much more watered down league than Russell? Yes. But I'd argue that it doesn't matter much in the debate. Russell had a much stronger team, but played much stronger competition. Jordan had a much weaker team, but played much weaker competition (I mean Luc Longley couldn't even make some NBA rosters in today's league, let alone start on a championship contender).
I also don't buy this athleticism B.S. First, Russell could jump out of the gym. Second, if you brought Jordan back to the '60s, he wouldn't have had the access to the training he had in the '90s. Similarly, if Russell played in the '90s, he'd probably have 25 lbs more of muscle due to more modern training/weight lifting methods.
Here's what I do buy: the reason that Jordan was so overrated was because he was lucky to play in a stretch where no other transcendent superstar was in his prime.
Think about it, if you had to name your greatest 10-15 players of all time, who would they be?
Russell
Wilt
West
Robertson
Magic
Bird
Jabbar
Erving
Olajuwon
Jordan
Duncan
Shaq
Kobe
That's 12 right there. Here's the problem. Russell had to contend with Wilt (and West and Robertson), Bird had to contend with Magic, Jabbar, and Erving. Duncan had to contend with Shaq and Kobe. Jordan had to contend with...well, some might say Olajuwon; however, Jordan and Olajuwon never faced each other in the playoffs. (and Bird and Magic were fading by the time Jordan won a title, and Shaq hadn't matured while Jordan was still playing).
And that to me is the huge problem with declaring Jordan unquestionably the greatest player of all time. His first title he beats an aging Magic Johnson. His second title he beats Drexler. His third title he beats Barkley. His fourth he beats Kemp and Payton. And his last two he beats Malone and Stockton.
Don't get me wrong. That's very impressive. And while Drexler, Barkley, and Malone are hardly names to scoff at. If they were really in the same class as the players on my aforementioned list, one would think they would've had more finals appearances.
And here's the crux of my argument. While the argument that Jordan would have 8 titles if he never retired (though also keep in mind that he would've had to face Olajuwon, something that could've been very problematic with Longley and Bill Wennington in the post), I question how many titles Jordan would've won if he had had a consistent transcendent opponent to match up against.
Now I'm not suggesting that the '86 Celtics or '62 Celtics would've clobbered the Bulls. Clearly that's the case. They were much better and deeper teams. What I'm suggesting is this: what would've happened if the '91 Lakers team had the Magic of 6 years earlier? What would happen if the '92 Blazers had Kobe in his prime instead of Clyde? Or what would've happened if Larry Bird was with the Suns instead of Sir Charles? Or Kareem paired with Gary Payton instead of Shawn Kemp. Or Duncan in the post with Stockton instead of Karl Malone?
I think if that had happened, we might be talking about Jordan winning, at best, half the titles he did. And that's still very impressive and that would still put him in the discussion for greatest player of all time. However, I don't think the general public would view it to be so cut and dry.
Also, one last minor point, while I think Jordan had outstanding defensive ability, he was essentially the Derek Jeter of Defensive Teams the last half of his career. Playing with Pippen meant that Jordan ALWAYS guarded the opposition's weaker wing. And once Ron Harper came along, Jordan usually guarded the opponent's weakest offensive player of the 1-3 positions. To me, if you're going to guard the weakest player on the floor consistently, you shouldn't be making defensive teams.
Topic: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ? (Read 86055 times)