Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?

[aporel#18]

Bill Russell has greater achievements despite more hardship. If he had been on sportscenter and had a shoe called "Russells" then we probably aren't having this conversation

I'll remind myself to TP you again.

[aporel#18]

If Bill Russell played for LAL and MJ played for Celtics, I think most people would be arguing for MJ. Even if Russell is the greatest defensive player ever - offense beats defense, I go with MJ.

If MJ played for the Celtics, he would demand to be traded, or star a "The Decision" himself... unless he started to share the ball and play team oriented basketball. Then he'd probably have a shot at being a lot better than Magic and Bird. Russell + Red was the ultimate formula for winning, but I don't think anyone here would be saying "offense beats defense" in case they never team up together.

And about Bill Russell playing for LAL? They had their own Russell in Mikan, althought he played for the Minneapolis Lakers. And you can search all over the Staples Center for his retired number but you won't find it. That's how they respect their great players.

[CelticsFanNC]

   Jordan was the only player in NBA history who could dominate the basketball and win multiple NBA titles while doing so.  I think that says a lot about his individual talent but it also says a lot about the watered down era in which he dominated.  The 90's on a team level just weren't nearly as stacked as the best teams were a decade before when Magic and Bird were battling each other for supremacy.

  I have always wondered why people, especially the media automatically say Jordan was the greatest of all-time and better then Magic Johnson and Larry Bird without much thought, debate or discussion.  Their reasoning for this is always that he won more NBA titles.

 If that is the case then why is Jordan better then Russell??  Answer:  because Jordan played in the ESPN, 24 hour media circus era while Russell played during an era that is mostly forgotten.

  Personally, if I were picking a team from the all-time greats I would pick Magic or Bird over Jordan because I prefer a team oriented game and because Bird and Magic made the players around them better while Jordan didn't do that, he carried them on his back.

[dark_lord]

these arguments go round and round and seldom are resolved.  reason being:

-different eras
-different positions
-different rules of the game during their respective era
-technology

see 

[oldmanspeaks]

The better question is "who would you rather play with". Russell wins hands down. I can only dream of having an incredible defensive player behind me when playing guard. And to have a big man that understands in/out on offense is refreshing to any guard. Jordan would be a nightmare to play with as he only gave up the ball when he felt like it and critized everyone he played with. He was the opposite of "having your back". He even punched out Steve Kerr. To be truly great you have to make everyone around you better and not just be "the show" that your teammates watch. It is incredibly hard to shoot the ball when you only get it when the star feels like giving it to you.

[syfy9]

  Jordan was the only player in NBA history who could dominate the basketball and win multiple NBA titles while doing so.

There's this guy named Kobe, who did the exact same thing.

Bill Russell was the only player in NBA history to dominate without the basketball in his hands at all times and win multiple NBA titles while doing so.

[angryguy77]

The better question is "who would you rather play with". Russell wins hands down. I can only dream of having an incredible defensive player behind me when playing guard. And to have a big man that understands in/out on offense is refreshing to any guard. Jordan would be a nightmare to play with as he only gave up the ball when he felt like it and critized everyone he played with. He was the opposite of "having your back". He even punched out Steve Kerr. To be truly great you have to make everyone around you better and not just be "the show" that your teammates watch. It is incredibly hard to shoot the ball when you only get it when the star feels like giving it to you.

To be fair, Kerr deserves to be punched...a lot

[angryguy77]

Honestly while people are saying big men couldn't play in this era I'd have to point out I'm not sure that wings could play in theirs. 

Do you really think Kobe, MJ, D Wade, Pierce, and Lebron could drive at will against Wilt, Kareem, Russell, Dave Cowens, etc? 

What do you think would happen when Kobe goes to drive on Russell? Seriously. How do you think that would go?

Lets not forget that they couldn't get away then with what they do today. Put Jordan in that era without jordan rules and you take away some of his ability. Not saying Jordan was only great because of star treatment, but he did gain an advantage. Brian Russell agrees 100%.

[Bingbangbarros]

A few arguments that I don't agree with. First, why was the 90's considered the watered down era. There were plenty of great players and teams. The 80's had great teams at the top and some terrible teams at the bottom. Its always been that way.

Second,  of course anyone would rather play with someone who plays defense, moves the ball and rarely shoots over someone like Jordan who averages over 30p every year. That does not make Russell the better player. Its not like Jordan was a one dimentional scorer. He did everything and he did it efficiently. Jordan passed the ball. The were lots of great scorers who did not. He also played great defense.

Third, it always drove me crazy when Jordan would get calls against the Celtics. But I never once felt that that was what made him great or gave him a huge advantage. All stars receive superstar calls for the most part. Jordan was great regardless. I don't know whether Russell did or not but I believe the Celtics were always a popular team during the run.

[Finkelskyhook]

A few arguments that I don't agree with. First, why was the 90's considered the watered down era. There were plenty of great players and teams. The 80's had great teams at the top and some terrible teams at the bottom. Its always been that way.

Second,  of course anyone would rather play with someone who plays defense, moves the ball and rarely shoots over someone like Jordan who averages over 30p every year. That does not make Russell the better player. Its not like Jordan was a one dimentional scorer. He did everything and he did it efficiently. Jordan passed the ball. The were lots of great scorers who did not. He also played great defense.

Third, it always drove me crazy when Jordan would get calls against the Celtics. But I never once felt that that was what made him great or gave him a huge advantage. All stars receive superstar calls for the most part. Jordan was great regardless. I don't know whether Russell did or not but I believe the Celtics were always a popular team during the run.

The reality is that it did give Jordan a huge advantage because he was the first of any era and the only player of his to get officiated by his own set of rules.  Jordan was a truly great player.  But make no mistake.  He had a clear advantage by virtue of being treated in an obvious exclusive way on the court


The Celtics may have been a popular team during their run, But Russell and his team played by the same rules their opponents did.

Jordan never was officiated like his contempories as a member of the Bulls.

[Dante]

Why are we even comparing MJ to anybody at all? Comparators obviously did not live the MJ era. For a minute there, I thought that Lebron would be the second coming of MJ due to his physical abilities, but then, his mental toughness set him back. Right now nobody knows if Lebron can recoup from his mental screw-up (which Im sure he is suffering from). MJ was poetry in motion. He was a unique specimen. Like Tiger was a unique specimen till he got his own brand of screw-up.
Russell was also unique in his own kind of world. Arguably the most team efficient center that ever lived - but you could also say that Chamberlain's individual stats stats will never never will be repeated, nor come close to. MJ is MJ. The Ted Williams and/or the Stan Musial(sic) of batting.The Tiger in Golf. The Pelé of soccer. He was a distinctly unique player not to be compared to anybody. So was Larry; so was Magic; so was Kareem;so was Oscar R; so was Babe Ruth; so was the Bear; so was Mickey Mantle. Do not demena their graetness by comparing one with another cause to do that, you have to demean one in order to enhance the other. None of them  deserve that. 

[Kane3387]

Why are we even comparing MJ to anybody at all? Comparators obviously did not live the MJ era. For a minute there, I thought that Lebron would be the second coming of MJ due to his physical abilities, but then, his mental toughness set him back. Right now nobody knows if Lebron can recoup from his mental screw-up (which Im sure he is suffering from). MJ was poetry in motion. He was a unique specimen. Like Tiger was a unique specimen till he got his own brand of screw-up.
Russell was also unique in his own kind of world. Arguably the most team efficient center that ever lived - but you could also say that Chamberlain's individual stats stats will never never will be repeated, nor come close to. MJ is MJ. The Ted Williams and/or the Stan Musial(sic) of batting.The Tiger in Golf. The Pelé of soccer. He was a distinctly unique player not to be compared to anybody. So was Larry; so was Magic; so was Kareem;so was Oscar R; so was Babe Ruth; so was the Bear; so was Mickey Mantle. Do not demena their graetness by comparing one with another cause to do that, you have to demean one in order to enhance the other. None of them  deserve that. 

I like what you said, but MJ is the baddest man to ever touch a basketball. Period.

[BillRussellISGOD]

The case for Russell as far as being the Greatest of ALL TIME...

(I Wrote this a while back)

 im not saying Russell would be the best player RIGHT NOW. im But Russell dominated his era more than anyone has dominated there's, even more so than MJ/Wilt/Kareem, read on..

Russells Defense is beyond legendary and was the Reason he captured back to back NCAA titles and after won 11 NBA titles in a 13 yr stretch (13 titles in 15 yrs) and if you want too go back too hs, he won 18 titles in 21 yrs..this is how good his defense is..

  YR   Drtg   Rank Diff from League Avg. Diff from 2nd place
1956  90.4 6/8   -1.5
--------------------------------------------------------
1957   82.4   1/8   4.8                               2.5
1958   82.0   1/8   5.2                               3.9
1959   83.0   1/8   5.8                               4.4
1960   83.9   1/8   6.2                               1.8
1961   83.0   1/8   8.2                               4.6
1962   84.3   1/8   8.7                               6.3
1963   86.6   1/9   9.0                               6.1
1964   82.7   1/9   11.5                             5.6
1965   83.1   1/9   9.9                               8.1
1966   87.3   1/9   7.1             4.0
1967   90.8   1/10  4.9            1.7
1968   92.0   2/12  4.6          -
1969   88.4   1/14  6.8           2.8
------------------------------------------------------------
1970 98.5 7/16 0.6 -

*1956 (the yr before Russell)
* 1957 (the yr after Russell)
 (1) The Celtics led the league in defense in 12 of Russells' 13 years
(2) From 1958-1966 they dominated the league defensively like no team I can find for a 9 year period
(3) From 1961-1965 the ran off 5 consecutive historically dominant seasons. Look at those numbers.
(4) Before Russell they were a bottom defensive team and immediately jumped 6.3 relative points and 8.0 raw points to the top.
(5) After Russell they dropped to the middle of the pack, losing 6.2 relative points and 10.1 raw points.

According to Neil's method at B-R, who is slightly underestimating Boston's pace relative to the simple method (because he's assuming fewer turnovers are in play), those uber-dominant Celtics teams are the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th best defensive teams of all time, relative to competition. And there's nothing remotely comparable in NBA history for such sustained defensive dominance.


Basically where im getting at is the 50's-60's celtics won on defense and the driving force behind the defense was Bill Russell, He was by far the biggest part of this defense as you can see. The defense outside of Russell? it was meh, nothing special, as The graph shows.

Now, on too my next point.
The myth Russell had Great offensive support to cover up his one weakness (scoring)

now, Talking about the Celtics offense. it's a mistruth that Russell had all-world offensive support. first of all, Celtics were most years below average on offense, sometimes just downright league's bottom IIRC. (that's if you look at their ORTG, not PPG inflated by pace) if those stars were really as good as advertised then Celtics would be at least above average, and more likely, one of the league leaders in that regard. that was just... not what happened.
The Celtics offense was OBVIOUSLY good enough, but it wasn't average in some of those years, nevermind all-world offense some claim he had.
Most of those hof'ers are in becaus They were apart of a team that won 11 titles in a 13 yr stretch, not becaus they were actual legit hof'ers. Guys like KC Jones are in the hof for god sakes.

Now, you may be saying great, he dominated on defense, but guys like MJ could do it on BOTH SIDES, well thats flawed when Russells defense makes a Bigger Impact than even MJ had on offense. Russell made a decent group of defenders a dominating force that is like 2 ballparks above everyone else. Russell led a bunch of average defenders, into Historically GREAT defenses. Could MJ/Magic with average offense around them, Make them into Historically GREAT offenses? I don't think so...

Now, To my next topic, advanced stats (win shares/per.)
Years, such as 1969 People like too point out Russell was sometimes 3rd-4th in some of these numbers. Well this is EXTREMLY missleading for someone who Mastered All of the little things, that don't show up in box scores.
Examples in '69, Russell was behind Nelson/Havlick i believe in playoff win shares/per 48. These stats don't do Russell justice as he was the main reason for opponents poor shooting. Also..
*the Celtics without Russell and WITH Havlicek, Nelson, etc., went 0-5. Happened again in '62. Russell misses a stretch of games due to injury, Celtics can't win. Russell comes back to the lineup, Celtics win again. We saw it in '58. Russell gets injured in the Finals, Celtics don't win title. With a healthy Russell, they win eight straight. This is not a coincidence
*Don't forget that Russell was also coaching in addition to playing 46 minutes a game at 35 years old. It baffles me that people suggesting that he would rank behind a couple of teammates because they say they had better numbers, when Russell is the one player whose contributions to winning are unquantifiable.

Also, Too the people who like to Say wilt> Russell becaus of numbers, you need to do some serious research on each career. Its also a myth that Russell only won becaus he had better teammates. For example in '69' When the celtics were the last seed to make it in, and he led a bunch of old vets and he beat 2 better teams on paper that yr (knicks/lakers.) Including beating LA IN Game 7 ON THE ROAD, against a trio led by Wilt himself, West, and Baylor.

Here's a great quote that sums up the competitor Wilt was

"In a way, I like it better when we lose. It’s over and I can look forward to the next game. If we win, it builds up the tension and I start worrying about the next game.”- Wilt Chamberlain



Which brings me to my last point

* Russell is the ONLY member of those 11 title teams during that 13 yr stretch
* The 2 longest losing streaks of that whole era, was when Russell went down with injury
* The Celtics went from Winning there 11th title in 13 yrs in '69 to missing the playoffs the following year and failing to make the playoffs

Also, What did Russell do when it mattered? He was a perfect 11-0 In deciding games (10-0 in game 7's, 1-0 in game 5)

In conclusion, His stats don't look all time great, But he made his teammates better than they looked, and knew how too win, and he won ALOT. To say guys like MJ/Wilt are better based on stats imo is unfair when you can CLEARLY see Russells impact on his teams, and his impact was HUGE. So, do state tell the whole strory? Not even close...

[CelticsFanNC]

A few arguments that I don't agree with. First, why was the 90's considered the watered down era. There were plenty of great players and teams. The 80's had great teams at the top and some terrible teams at the bottom. Its always been that way.

Second,  of course anyone would rather play with someone who plays defense, moves the ball and rarely shoots over someone like Jordan who averages over 30p every year. That does not make Russell the better player. Its not like Jordan was a one dimentional scorer. He did everything and he did it efficiently. Jordan passed the ball. The were lots of great scorers who did not. He also played great defense.

Third, it always drove me crazy when Jordan would get calls against the Celtics. But I never once felt that that was what made him great or gave him a huge advantage. All stars receive superstar calls for the most part. Jordan was great regardless. I don't know whether Russell did or not but I believe the Celtics were always a popular team during the run.

  Other then Jordan how many of his Bull's would start for the Celtics or Lakers a decade earlier?

  Not a single one of them.  Pippen over Bird?  Paxson over Magic, DJ or Tiny?  Cartwright or Wennington over Parish or Jabbar?  Rodman or Grant over McHale?  Seriously?? Those Bull's couldn't have possibly competed with the top teams a decade earlier even though they dominated the decade of the 90's because even though Jordan was amazing even he couldn't have over come the HUGE talent advantage those Celtics and Lakers had over his Bulls.

  From the mid 80's through the mid 90's there was a tremendous amount of expansion which watered down the talent levels of each team.  Gone were the teams with starters and former All-Stars coming off of the bench like those Celtics and Lakers of a decade before had on a regular basis.

  The 90's were watered down.   I don't even think it's debatable but that's just my opinion on it I guess.  It is the effect of expansion in every sport.  It is also the only era in NBA history were one guy dominating the basketball could win even one NBA title let alone 6 of them.

  There were plenty of great player during the 90's.  Just as many as in any other era but there were also a lot more teams which pretty obviously waters down the talent level of each team and therefore the entire league.

  If Jordan's Bull's had played a decade earlier he'd have been lucky to win more then one NBA title.  How much would that change his status in NBA history?  It would change everything.

[BASS_THUMPER]

true^^^^^

was more scrubs than ballas