Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?

[BballTim]

Game 7 in 1987 goes differently and the C's and Lakers are 4-4.  Len Bias lives and who knows how that effects championships and Bird's legacy?


I recall at various times watching Larry Bird, Magic Johnson and Dr. J that I had never seen anything like what these players could do.  All amazing.   Then, MJ comes along and he could shoot almost as well as Bird, make plays almost as well as Magic and do 'Dr. J' better than Dr. J.  In addition, he could dominate defensively (not like Russell, but in his own way was a force on defense).  As unbelievable as Bird and Magic were, MJ just seemed to me to be the most gifted and skilled athlete I'd ever seen.  At least until he started swinging a baseball bat.

  MJ was a great player and the best sg I've ever seen, but he was nowhere near the shooter Bird was. He also wasn't the passer or playmaker that Bird or Magic was. Better scorer, yes. Better defender, yes. Great shooter, not so much.

Nowhere near?  I don't agree.  MJ became a remarkable shooter and playmaker.  No -- he wasn't as good a shooter as Bird but he averaged .497 for his career compared to Bird's .496 --  MJ was a darn good shooter.  Nor was he the playmaker Magic (or Bird) was -- but he managed to average over 5 assists per game for his career.  He became incredible at everything.

  Same fg% with about 10x the dunks. He was a decent shooter, especially later in his career, but Bird was arguably the best ever.

[NickFaldo]

This has to be the best Celtics forum on the internet. I'm humbled to be here.

I'd say one of the Houston teams the C's faced in the finals was good. The other one was below .500 during the year and caught fire. Maybe they had injuries or some explanation, but I don't remember them being more than mediocre.

Bird was only on one team that convincingly won a title. The first year, we barely got past the 76ers. Now that was an epic comeback, not as good as the 2004 Red Sox, but close.

And one of his rings against the Lakers was a pure steal, as someone else said.

It's very unfortunate we lost Lenny Bias. It was even more tragic for him and his family. But the truth is Bias had the potential to out-Jordan Jordan or still be one of the top players in the league. And yes, it's true that McHale's foot injury was devastating. Bird's back went out. Reggie Lewis is another what if, but probably not as much as Lenny Bias was.

David Stern also didn't help with giving relief. He clobbered McHale and the Timberwolves for the Joe Smith scandal. He hurt the Celtics in regards to players unexpectedly dying. Again, I'm not trying to sound like Bias and Lewis dying hurting the C's means more than the real life stuff.

I think the bottom line in all these debates is not Russell, Bird, Jordan, Moses Malone, or James Naismith. It's Red Auerbach. That guy had to be the greatest GM-Coach in the history of professional sports. I know John Wooden put up great results for UCLA.

Red created three decades of dynasties. For the 80's, when I was a teen, it was stupefying how Red toyed with the league with his moves. If I was a GM on another team, I would have blocked his calls. Drafting Bird a year earlier. DJ for Rick Robey. Getting Parish and McHale. And much more. One last thought with what ifs. Maxwell took a lot of heat for supposedly taking the money and then dogging it the year before we got Walton. What a lot of people forget is that Larry Bird banged up his hand in a bar fight. But as there were Jordan rules, perhaps there were also Bird rules. I also marvel at how Doc Rivers never gets any bad press. Theo and Francona are getting roasted. People are screaming for one or the other to go. Doc doesn't even get constructive criticism. Sorry, I'm not a big fan of Doc Rivers.

[Neurotic Guy]

Game 7 in 1987 goes differently and the C's and Lakers are 4-4.  Len Bias lives and who knows how that effects championships and Bird's legacy?


I recall at various times watching Larry Bird, Magic Johnson and Dr. J that I had never seen anything like what these players could do.  All amazing.   Then, MJ comes along and he could shoot almost as well as Bird, make plays almost as well as Magic and do 'Dr. J' better than Dr. J.  In addition, he could dominate defensively (not like Russell, but in his own way was a force on defense).  As unbelievable as Bird and Magic were, MJ just seemed to me to be the most gifted and skilled athlete I'd ever seen.  At least until he started swinging a baseball bat.

There was no game 7 in 87.

Oops -- as is often the case my memory did not serve.  Thanks.

[BballTim]

In regards to the number of championships, It was mentioned that Bird and Magic had better teammates and that is true. This, in my opinion, is very key when looking at how great Jordan was. Do you think Bird and Magic win championships with Jordan's supporting cast because I don't.

  Bird and Magic would have trashed the 90s like MJ did. They might have had problems winning with Jordan's team in the 80s, but Jordan wouldn't have been winning very much in the 80s with that team either.

I'm not really so sure of that.  I think that 72 win team probably wins the title most years in the 80's.

  Not with the defenses of the 80s and and the longer 3 point line.

[Moranis]

In regards to the number of championships, It was mentioned that Bird and Magic had better teammates and that is true. This, in my opinion, is very key when looking at how great Jordan was. Do you think Bird and Magic win championships with Jordan's supporting cast because I don't.

  Bird and Magic would have trashed the 90s like MJ did. They might have had problems winning with Jordan's team in the 80s, but Jordan wouldn't have been winning very much in the 80s with that team either.

I'm not really so sure of that.  I think that 72 win team probably wins the title most years in the 80's.

  Not with the defenses of the 80s and and the longer 3 point line.

I disagree.  That Bulls teams was built to win titles in any decade under any rules system. 

[Celtics4ever]

The NBA was weakened by expansion in the Bull's era.   In the 80's good teams had 3-4 all stars easily.  During the 90's teams had two if they were lucky.  This points to the overall weakness of the era.

Jordan would have done well in any era.   But their team never had a decent big at the C.  I think Parrish and McHale would have had a field day with Rodman and Longley.  Ditto for Kareem and Worthy they would have owned them.   I think the 80's C's would have knocked them silly.   Two men won't beat a team of five.  They never had to face a team with a decent four or five because there was a drought period of bigs during the 90's and the league was so weak.

Jordan is the one who benefitted from playing in a weak era.   The 60's teams were really loaded with talent.   They had All Americans on every team because there were not a gazillion teams.  Some of those guys if they had modern training would have been able to play today.   

[Moranis]

The NBA was weakened by expansion in the Bull's era.   In the 80's good teams had 3-4 all stars easily.  During the 90's teams had two if they were lucky.  This points to the overall weakness of the era.

Jordan would have done well in any era.   But their team never had a decent big at the C.  I think Parrish and McHale would have had a field day with Rodman and Longley.  Ditto for Kareem and Worthy they would have owned them.   I think the 80's C's would have knocked them silly.   Two men won't beat a team of five.  They never had to face a team with a decent four or five because there was a drought period of bigs during the 90's and the league was so weak.

Jordan is the one who benefitted from playing in a weak era.   The 60's teams were really loaded with talent.   They had All Americans on every team because there were not a gazillion teams.  Some of those guys if they had modern training would have been able to play today.   

I believe Longley, Wennington, and Rodman would have done well enough against the Lakers and Celtics.  Pippen would have been solid and Jordan would have had a field day.  Harper would have been fine at the point.  Kukoc would have posed matchup problems for the bench of the 80's teams.  Kerr would have been money from any three point line.  The Bulls really were a well constructed team.  Sure they lacked a true dominant offensive big man, but the guys they had did their thing and did it well (and let's not kid ourselves, Rodman is the greatest rebounder in NBA history).  Not to mention that Rodman, Pip, and Jordan were all all-world defenders.

And that team did not struggle at all with the Mourning Heat, the Ewing/Oakley Knicks, the O'Neal/Grant Magic, or the Kemp/Schrempf Sonics losing just 3 games total (1 to the Knicks, 2 to the Sonics).  Now granted those teams didn't have quite the versatility of the Lakers and Celtics of the 80's down low, but they were all anchored with HOF talent (though Kemp blew his and Mourning got sick so they probably don't get into the HOF). 

[BballTim]

In regards to the number of championships, It was mentioned that Bird and Magic had better teammates and that is true. This, in my opinion, is very key when looking at how great Jordan was. Do you think Bird and Magic win championships with Jordan's supporting cast because I don't.

  Bird and Magic would have trashed the 90s like MJ did. They might have had problems winning with Jordan's team in the 80s, but Jordan wouldn't have been winning very much in the 80s with that team either.

I'm not really so sure of that.  I think that 72 win team probably wins the title most years in the 80's.

  Not with the defenses of the 80s and and the longer 3 point line.

I disagree.  That Bulls teams was built to win titles in any decade under any rules system. 

  Any decade where the center's job on offense is to stand outside the three point line to force the opposing center to stay above the foul line.

[BballTim]

And that team did not struggle at all with the Mourning Heat, the Ewing/Oakley Knicks, the O'Neal/Grant Magic, or the Kemp/Schrempf Sonics losing just 3 games total (1 to the Knicks, 2 to the Sonics).  Now granted those teams didn't have quite the versatility of the Lakers and Celtics of the 80's down low, but they were all anchored with HOF talent (though Kemp blew his and Mourning got sick so they probably don't get into the HOF). 

  That team didn't really stop Ewing, O'Neal or Kemp, those teams were just weak aside from those players. Look at some of the guys that were starting or getting major minutes, it's pretty sad. Longley or Wennington can't handle Parish, Rodman didn't have the size to cover Kevin and Bird would still be Bird. The Bulls could cope with one good big by not letting them go way above their average and not letting the Oakley/Grant/Shrempfs of the world kill them but they would have been vastly outmatched on the front line against the Celts.
 

[Moranis]

And that team did not struggle at all with the Mourning Heat, the Ewing/Oakley Knicks, the O'Neal/Grant Magic, or the Kemp/Schrempf Sonics losing just 3 games total (1 to the Knicks, 2 to the Sonics).  Now granted those teams didn't have quite the versatility of the Lakers and Celtics of the 80's down low, but they were all anchored with HOF talent (though Kemp blew his and Mourning got sick so they probably don't get into the HOF). 

  That team didn't really stop Ewing, O'Neal or Kemp, those teams were just weak aside from those players. Look at some of the guys that were starting or getting major minutes, it's pretty sad. Longley or Wennington can't handle Parish, Rodman didn't have the size to cover Kevin and Bird would still be Bird. The Bulls could cope with one good big by not letting them go way above their average and not letting the Oakley/Grant/Shrempfs of the world kill them but they would have been vastly outmatched on the front line against the Celts.
 

The Magic and Sonics were both pretty darn good top to bottom. 

Sure the Bulls would have struggled with Chief and McHale, and Bird was always Bird, but I don't see the Celtics stopping Jordan either.  In the course of a series it is about give and take and I think that Bulls team would have done very well against most Celtics teams.  Take 83/84, if you put Maxwell on Jordan, who guards Pippen (Bird doesn't have the quickness)?  If you put Maxwell on Pippen, then Jordan has a field day against DJ or Henderson.  Harper would just post up Ainge or DJ all day long.  Team games are about matchups and the Bulls pose significant problems there.  I also don't think you are giving Longley and Wennington enough credit.  They were both credible defenders of true interior scorers.  They wouldn't stop Parish by any stretch, but would make life difficult on him.  Rodman would annoy the crap out of McHale just as he did everyone else.  He wouldn't shut McHale down (but no one could), but he would give him problems with his quickness and surprising strength (and if I recall correctly they did in fact play against each other a number of times when Rodman was on the Pistons and if memory serves Rodman did as well on him as anyone in their actual direct head to head situations). 

That Bulls team was as good as any team in NBA history and would match-up very well against any other all time great team.  Yes the league was watered down some in the 90's, yes they didn't have a big time interior scorer, but from top to bottom that team would be match-up hell for just about any other team in history.

[Who]

The Magic and Sonics were both pretty darn good top to bottom. 

The Magic had no bench. Well, Brian Shaw, he was a good backup PG. That's it. The rest of their bench was a disaster zone.

Their starting SF, Dennis Scott, was highly over-rated too. A pathetic defender and rebounder. Too much of a liability in those areas to be a high minute guy on a contender.

Their four other starters - Shaq, Penny Hardaway, Horace Grant and Nick Anderson - were very good though.

Edit: Just to finish of the thought, the Magic were on the verge of something very special. They had the main pieces in Shaq and Penny and two very good complementary pieces in Nick and Horace but they didn't have enough depth or quality coaching to be a Championship worthy team.

[Who]

  Harper would just post up Ainge or DJ all day long.  Team games are about matchups and the Bulls pose significant problems there. 

Ron Harper wasn't a scoring threat by that point in his career.

He never even averaged double digit points during his four seasons with the Bulls. Non-issue.

[BballTim]

And that team did not struggle at all with the Mourning Heat, the Ewing/Oakley Knicks, the O'Neal/Grant Magic, or the Kemp/Schrempf Sonics losing just 3 games total (1 to the Knicks, 2 to the Sonics).  Now granted those teams didn't have quite the versatility of the Lakers and Celtics of the 80's down low, but they were all anchored with HOF talent (though Kemp blew his and Mourning got sick so they probably don't get into the HOF). 

  That team didn't really stop Ewing, O'Neal or Kemp, those teams were just weak aside from those players. Look at some of the guys that were starting or getting major minutes, it's pretty sad. Longley or Wennington can't handle Parish, Rodman didn't have the size to cover Kevin and Bird would still be Bird. The Bulls could cope with one good big by not letting them go way above their average and not letting the Oakley/Grant/Shrempfs of the world kill them but they would have been vastly outmatched on the front line against the Celts.
 

The Magic and Sonics were both pretty darn good top to bottom. 

Sure the Bulls would have struggled with Chief and McHale, and Bird was always Bird, but I don't see the Celtics stopping Jordan either.  In the course of a series it is about give and take and I think that Bulls team would have done very well against most Celtics teams.  Take 83/84, if you put Maxwell on Jordan, who guards Pippen (Bird doesn't have the quickness)?  If you put Maxwell on Pippen, then Jordan has a field day against DJ or Henderson.  Harper would just post up Ainge or DJ all day long.  Team games are about matchups and the Bulls pose significant problems there.  I also don't think you are giving Longley and Wennington enough credit.  They were both credible defenders of true interior scorers.  They wouldn't stop Parish by any stretch, but would make life difficult on him.  Rodman would annoy the crap out of McHale just as he did everyone else.  He wouldn't shut McHale down (but no one could), but he would give him problems with his quickness and surprising strength (and if I recall correctly they did in fact play against each other a number of times when Rodman was on the Pistons and if memory serves Rodman did as well on him as anyone in their actual direct head to head situations). 

  McHale didn't have a problem with Rodman guarding him with his long arms and height advantage. Pre-injury Bird would have been able to cover Pippen (who wasn't really a dominant scorer). Harper wasn't that great on offense to begin with and DJ's an all-time great defender.

That Bulls team was as good as any team in NBA history and would match-up very well against any other all time great team.  Yes the league was watered down some in the 90's, yes they didn't have a big time interior scorer, but from top to bottom that team would be match-up hell for just about any other team in history.

  Didn't have a big time interior scorer? The Celts would get better interior scoring starting Perk and Baby than those guys did. That was a team with one dominant scorer in a league set up to create more isolations on offense.

[Donoghus]

While I can certainly understand some peoples' sentiment is that Russell is better than MJ, here is how I see it.

Bill Russell is the greatest champion of all time and one of the greatest basketball players of all time.

Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time.

I think the two can be separated and don't necessarily go hand in hand.

My two cents.

[Moranis]

  Harper would just post up Ainge or DJ all day long.  Team games are about matchups and the Bulls pose significant problems there. 

Ron Harper wasn't a scoring threat by that point in his career.

He never even averaged double digit points during his four seasons with the Bulls. Non-issue.

In 93-94 Ron Harper was a 20 ppg scorer for the Clippers.  He came to the Bulls and went below 10, not because he couldn't score, but because that wasn't his role on the Bulls (his minutes also dropped a lot).  Harper was still very capable of scoring, he just didn't have to so he didn't (the year after MJ and Pip left he went back up to 11.4 ppg for the Bulls, of course by then he was 35 on the very tail end of his career).