Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?

[syfy9]

Can you give me reasons? There is a select individual I interact with on a daily basis that believes MJ is the greatest to have ever played. He won't listen to "11 championships", "Changed the basketball world", or "Best Defender of all time and therefore best player of all time", and all of that great stuff.

[Lucky17]

If your friend won't listen to the basketball-related arguments, Russ received the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

The Presidential Medal of Freedom is awarded by the President of the United States "for especially meritorious contribution to (1) the security or national interests of the United States, or (2) world peace, or (3) cultural or other significant public or private endeavors"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidential_Medal_of_Freedom_recipients

[PosImpos]

I don't think anybody has ever been as great as Jordan on both sides of the ball, but neither has anybody ever been greater than Russell was defensively. 

[ACF]

DEFENSE WINS CHAMP1ONSH1PS

[Moranis]

He isn't

[housecall]

Why can't you both be right?...where is it written two players can't have equal value to their teams and league.

[JBcat]

I don't think anybody has ever been as great as Jordan on both sides of the ball, but neither has anybody ever been greater than Russell was defensively.  

I'm with you on this.   Jordan most likely would have won 6 championships in a row if he didn't take any time off.  Granted it was a watered down league a little at the time however you could make the case it's much harder to win in a 30 team league than what a 10 team league in the 60s before the ABA merger.  Jordan also didn't have the teammates Russell had as well.  Saying all that it's hard for me to go against Russell in this debate.  

[Coach]

Granted it was a watered down league a little at the time 

What?  You are saying that basketball in the 50's and 60's was better than the late 80's - 90's? 

That's rubbish.  It's impossible to compare players between era's. 

If you took Bill Russell, and planted him in the 80's-90's, you know who he is?  Dennis Rodman, albeit without that tats, piercings, and drinking problem.

And that is not saying something bad.  Rodman was an unbelievable player.  Amazing motor, one of the best defenders ever, a great passer with a high basketball IQ.

But the question then is, Rodman better than Jordan?  Come on....

If you took any of the teams Jordan played on, they are killing any and all of the 11 championship teams that Russell played on.

As much as I love the Celtics, and Bill Russell, how can anyone say that he was a better basketball player than Michael Jordan? 

[bdm860]

LeBron changed his jersey number from 23 to 6 because MJ wasn't good enough for him anymore and he wanted to honor Russell.

Check and Mate.

 

[paulcowens]

If you took Bill Russell, and planted him in the 80's-90's, you know who he is?  Dennis Rodman, albeit without that tats, piercings, and drinking problem.

Silly.  Rodman = Russell?  I love Rodman, but it is to laugh.   Russell is like Rodman, if Rodman could pass better than anyone else in the game not named Rondo, defend all over the floor like Dwight Howard, only better, score plenty, and most of all, LEAD.  I love Rodman.  He's possibly the most underestimated player of the past several decades.  But to compare him to Russell?  

A lot of folks like to play the mind game that views the most recent players as the best.  We saw an example of this recently, when Pippen compared the sainted Jordan unfavorably to Lebron James.  And on a certain level, it can be quite valid.   Presumably the latest build on the achievements of those who went before, which can make them automatically better in some ways.  There is and will always be a case to be made for the Latest Greatest.  But this argument is a two edged sword.  The athleticism of today's game was pioneered by Russell more than anyone.   He did more than anyone to define the game that Michael Jordan, and later Lebron, have played.  There is a case to be made for Legacy and Legend too.  Can those who walk in the footsteps of those who went before ever carve out a larger legend?

MJ may be the alltime player who has come closest to Russell's championship achievements, because he combined an immense bag of skills with a knack for leadership. He may have been the second best team leader of all time, to Russell.  But Russell's and Jordan's approach to leadership was quite different.  Jordan was fundamentally an intimidator.  He drove his team mates.   Russell could do that too, but more importantly, he understood their talents and their psychologies, and he inspired them and enabled them.  His mind was constantly on maximizing his team mates.  That, more than anything else, is the reason for 11 championships in 13 years, an achievement that may be the single greatest achievement in team sports.  Russell was the ultimate team player in what is, after all, a TEAM game.

It's no put down to Michael Jordan to call him the second greatest basketball player ever.  It's an honor to him that he came that close to our Russell.

[bdm860]

It's no put down to Michael Jordan to call him the second greatest basketball player ever.  It's an honor to him that he came that close to our Russell.

This is the way I always try to look at, regardless of who I put 1st or 2nd (or 3rd or 4th for that matter).  In terms of overall greatness I feel like we're arguing 99.9999 vs 99.9998, maybe throw in guys like Larry, Magic, and Wilt, and we're talking 99.996, 99.993, 99.98.  Most people can at least agree of whose in that upper echelon of greatness.  The actually ranking within there aren't really important.

[banty19]

The truth is most of us have never seen Russell play so we underrate or overrate him depending on our biases. Jordan, while a great player, is probably a little overrated since he was a media icon.

The answer? I have no idea. Though my green-tinted glasses are leaning toward defense over offense. MJ was a good perimeter defender but big defenders are far more important.

[Coach]

paulcowens: well written, but you do know that Russell was 6'9" 215, and couldn't shoot?

His career FG% was 44%.  This is in a league where his athleticism dominated, and a very high percentage of his shots came at the rim.

His career FT% was 56%.

I wondering what you think his stats would be in the current era?

Yes Russell was a great rebounder, but you can argue that Rodman, in relation to the league, was just as good.  Russell's best year was 63-64 when he won the rebounding title over Chamberlain by 2.4 rebounds per game.  Rodman's best year was 91-92 when he won the rebounding title by 3.2 rebounds a game.

As far as winning, Rodman was no slouch either.  He was on 5 title winners, which is second most in the modern era, to Jordan.

As far as leading by being a great teammate, I'm not so sure about that.  After being drafted the same year as Tommy H., Tommy won rookie of the year.  Russell was so mad, that he didn't speak to Tommy, and told him that he owed him half of the $300 check that Tommy got for the award.

I think you are suffering from the opposite view of "the current players must have been the best."  You think that because he won 11 championships, and is getting a statue built in his honor, Russell is the best.  But just think how he'd fair in today's league.  Are you saing that he would average 22 rebounds a game?  

As for the Lebron vs Michael debate, what separates them, is the same thing that separated Russell and Chamberlain.  The will to win, and the refusal to lose.  Jordan did what ever it took to win, and so did Russell.  That's what set those two appart.

What makes Jordan better then Russell, is his skill level.  Michael had the will to win, the athletism, and skill to pull it off.

[bdm860]

paulcowens: well written, but you do know that Russell was 6'9" 215, and couldn't shoot?

His career FG% was 44%.  This is in a league where his athleticism dominated, and a very high percentage of his shots came at the rim.

His career FT% was 56%.

I wondering what you think his stats would be in the current era?

Yes Russell was a great rebounder, but you can argue that Rodman, in relation to the league, was just as good.  Russell's best year was 63-64 when he won the rebounding title over Chamberlain by 2.4 rebounds per game.  Rodman's best year was 91-92 when he won the rebounding title by 3.2 rebounds a game.

As far as winning, Rodman was no slouch either.  He was on 5 title winners, which is second most in the modern era, to Jordan.

As far as leading by being a great teammate, I'm not so sure about that.  After being drafted the same year as Tommy H., Tommy won rookie of the year.  Russell was so mad, that he didn't speak to Tommy, and told him that he owed him half of the $300 check that Tommy got for the award.

I think you are suffering from the opposite view of "the current players must have been the best."  You think that because he won 11 championships, and is getting a statue built in his honor, Russell is the best.  But just think how he'd fair in today's league.  Are you saing that he would average 22 rebounds a game?  

As for the Lebron vs Michael debate, what separates them, is the same thing that separated Russell and Chamberlain.  The will to win, and the refusal to lose.  Jordan did what ever it took to win, and so did Russell.  That's what set those two appart.

What makes Jordan better then Russell, is his skill level.  Michael had the will to win, the athletism, and skill to pull it off.

One thing I want to say about this whole different generation and comparing stats things.  I feel like people make huge assumptions both ways.  What would a 1988 Jordan do in 1965, he could have averaged a triple double and scored 50ppg.  What would a 2010 LeBron do in 1960? Oh he’d average a quadruple double.  Those guys are bigger, stronger, faster, etc. then the players back then.  If you put Bill Russell in today’s NBA he wouldn’t win 11 championships, Wilt in today’s NBA wouldn’t average 50 and 25, Oscar Robertson wouldn’t average a triple double, etc., etc.

You can’t take one thing from 199X or 20XX and put it in the ‘50’s, ‘60’s or ‘70’s, you have to take everything.

I feel it’s like saying the guys who invented the big boxy computers that took up a whole room and could only perform basic math calculations aren’t as smart or intelligent as the guys today who invent smart phones and tablets.  Computers today are faster and stronger than what was built 30, 40, 50 years ago, so those guys making them must be smarter.  Players today are faster and stronger than the players 30, 40, 50 years ago, so they must be better.  It just doesn’t work that way.

If Jordan or LeBron were born in the 1930’s like Russell and Wilt, do you think they’d be as athletic, and fast, and as strong, and as good, and have the same level of skill?  I don’t.  Oh they would probably still be NBA stars, but it wouldn’t be the performance we see from them now.  Huge advancements (and the increase in availability) in nutrition, healthcare, sports medicine, athletic gear, training equipment, knowledge, travel and accomodations, and just the sport of basketball in general have occurred over the years resulting in very different products and results.  That’s really why you can’t compare different generations.

[LB3533]

If Jordan or Lebron were born in the 1930's they wouldn't be Jordan or Lebron.

If you transplanted Jordan or Lebron, through time travel, they'd crush the league in the 50's and 60's.

It would be like the Wolf in Teen Wolf...dominating the game on both sides of the ball.