Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?

[Finkelskyhook]

I know Russell was a great defensive player, but was he that much better than other defensive "specialists" over the years?  Defense is great and "wins championships" but you still need to outscore the other guy.

Forget Jordan, I don't even think Russell would be better than Dwight Howard if he played today.  The best big guys still have to score and that just wasn't Russells strength.  He would have to be superhuman defensively just to offset his offensive weakness.  And at 6-9 215 there is no way he would be that.

  I'd like to point out that you're talking about a 5 time league MVP. I'd also like to point out that Wilt Chamberlain won the league MVP in 1959-60. In the next three years he had the three highest scoring years in nba history as well as two of the three highest rebounding years ever. Russell won the MVP in all three of those years, including when Wilt scored 50 a game. This was before my time, but people considered what Russell did to be more valuable than the most dominating stretch of individual production the league has ever seen. It's not like there were no great offensive players back then, it's not like Wilt never won MVP awards. It seems that your estimation of Russell's impact was far less than the people who watched him play thought it was.

Great Post, BballTim.

The answer to Mr Kite's first question was absolutely.  Russell's blocks were outlet passes leading to breaks...Not missiles into the stands followed by chest-pounding with side-outs back to the offense.  Those outlet passes led to fast breaks.  Russell didn't have to outscore his guy.  He probably could have if he was interested in stats instead of what he was truly interested in.  He had his teammates to outscore their's.  Russell was also an excellent passer.  To compare Russell to Dwight Howard makes it obvious that Mr Kite never saw Russell play.  Russell was about winning.  Not entertaining.  He did it without the help of the commissioner or the officials.  He also won championships over arguably the most dominant player in NBA history...Who incendentally...Had some pretty good teammates of his own during that run.

I don't buy Moranis' contention about the perception Wilt had factoring in to the MVP voting.  Russell wasn't exactly seen as prince charming during his era.

[dtrader]

I feel like Bill Russell was the Rondo of the center position in his era.  Hands down the best defender at his position, and able to leave his mark on the game without scoring, but unable to be called the greatest because he doesnt have an all around game.

Basketball goes 2 ways, and if you aren't capable of dominating both sides, then you aren't capable of being the greatest ever.  I'm way to young to have watched Russell play to know for sure, but looking at his stats, it doesn't look like he was THAT great on the offensive end.  I grew up watching Jordan, and it seemed like he had the ability to choose how he crushed a team...offensively with his scoring (inside+out), or defensively (lock up man on man, or harassing the passing lanes).


Russell=greatest winner in league history
Jordan = greatest player

[Finkelskyhook]

Neurotic...Good post.

I don't doubt Jordan's talent.  If you've read my posts talking about Jordan and the messiah...I think they (respectively) would have been / would be much better and more dominant without the official's help.  They simply didn't / don't need the help.  They were / are so athletically superior that they could still dominate within the rulebook.

Stern has essentially built caracatures in the image of Jordan and the messiah.  Had he just let them play by everybody else's rules, the comparison between Jordan and Russell could carry water.  But when you can hack for a steal in front of the officials and then you can flagrantly push off a defender in front of the officials in championship moments for an uncontested shot..It hurts the legitimacy of Jordan's championship run.

Russell did it with his will.  I believe in the watered down environment Jordan played in, he could have also.  Jordan didn't need to.

[greg_kite]

I know Russell was a great defensive player, but was he that much better than other defensive "specialists" over the years?  Defense is great and "wins championships" but you still need to outscore the other guy.

Forget Jordan, I don't even think Russell would be better than Dwight Howard if he played today.  The best big guys still have to score and that just wasn't Russells strength.  He would have to be superhuman defensively just to offset his offensive weakness.  And at 6-9 215 there is no way he would be that.

  I'd like to point out that you're talking about a 5 time league MVP. I'd also like to point out that Wilt Chamberlain won the league MVP in 1959-60. In the next three years he had the three highest scoring years in nba history as well as two of the three highest rebounding years ever. Russell won the MVP in all three of those years, including when Wilt scored 50 a game. This was before my time, but people considered what Russell did to be more valuable than the most dominating stretch of individual production the league has ever seen. It's not like there were no great offensive players back then, it's not like Wilt never won MVP awards. It seems that your estimation of Russell's impact was far less than the people who watched him play thought it was.

Great Post, BballTim.

The answer to Mr Kite's first question was absolutely.  Russell's blocks were outlet passes leading to breaks...Not missiles into the stands followed by chest-pounding with side-outs back to the offense.  Those outlet passes led to fast breaks.  Russell didn't have to outscore his guy.  He probably could have if he was interested in stats instead of what he was truly interested in.  He had his teammates to outscore their's.  Russell was also an excellent passer.  To compare Russell to Dwight Howard makes it obvious that Mr Kite never saw Russell play.  Russell was about winning.  Not entertaining.  He did it without the help of the commissioner or the officials.  He also won championships over arguably the most dominant player in NBA history...Who incendentally...Had some pretty good teammates of his own during that run.

I don't buy Moranis' contention about the perception Wilt had factoring in to the MVP voting.  Russell wasn't exactly seen as prince charming during his era.

I've seen him on video and I didn't see anything that made me say he is light years ahead of guys like Olajuwon or Mutombo defensively, besides the fact that he was doing it against guys half his speed and half his size.  I could see your point if he was shutting down Wilt, but he didn't.  Yes, his teams won and he did a very good job, but by many he wasn't even considered the best center of his era.  How can he be the best of all time?

[BballTim]

I know Russell was a great defensive player, but was he that much better than other defensive "specialists" over the years?  Defense is great and "wins championships" but you still need to outscore the other guy.

Forget Jordan, I don't even think Russell would be better than Dwight Howard if he played today.  The best big guys still have to score and that just wasn't Russells strength.  He would have to be superhuman defensively just to offset his offensive weakness.  And at 6-9 215 there is no way he would be that.

  I'd like to point out that you're talking about a 5 time league MVP. I'd also like to point out that Wilt Chamberlain won the league MVP in 1959-60. In the next three years he had the three highest scoring years in nba history as well as two of the three highest rebounding years ever. Russell won the MVP in all three of those years, including when Wilt scored 50 a game. This was before my time, but people considered what Russell did to be more valuable than the most dominating stretch of individual production the league has ever seen. It's not like there were no great offensive players back then, it's not like Wilt never won MVP awards. It seems that your estimation of Russell's impact was far less than the people who watched him play thought it was.

It is widely rumored that because Wilt was such an a** that the other players in the league wouldn't vote for him and hence why Bill was winning all those MVP awards.  It wasn't until Wilt went to Philly when his perception started to change around the league amongst other players and hence why Wilt won 3 straight MVP's in Philly.

  As I pointed out, Wilt won the MVP the year before Russell won those three MVPs.

  

[greg_kite]

I know Russell was a great defensive player, but was he that much better than other defensive "specialists" over the years?  Defense is great and "wins championships" but you still need to outscore the other guy.

Forget Jordan, I don't even think Russell would be better than Dwight Howard if he played today.  The best big guys still have to score and that just wasn't Russells strength.  He would have to be superhuman defensively just to offset his offensive weakness.  And at 6-9 215 there is no way he would be that.

If I had to start an NBA team today with a center(or PF even) that small I'd be bummed.  Russell would barely crack my top 20 big guys as far as being dominant in today's game.

That being said, he was awesome and I cannot imagine what he went through in the 60's, with racism and playing against Wilt all the time.  I'm a Celtics die hard as much as anyone, but you can't just discount the facts that he was small and had little offensive skill.

The 11 titles argument is shallow and lacks insight.  The lack of trainers and nutrition argument is even worse.  He was already an athletic freak, that's pretty much the only argument going for him.  Putting on a few pounds of muscle wouldn't have improved his shooting.

Why could Ben Wallace thrive in this league? What about Nate Robinson, Charles Barkley, or Spud Webb have in common? They were gifted - and if just so happens Bill Russell was said to have a 48" vertical leap (Nate Robinson has 43.5") and a 7"2 wingspan (KD has a 7"4). He was a physical specimen. You can argue Bill Russell vs. MJ on greatest ever, but he was easily the smartest. If you've seen the film, he blocks with a purpose, unseen in the NBA today. He only uses enough energy to destroy you. Payton was a defensive specialist. MJ was a defensive specialist. Bill Russell was not a defensive specialist. He didn't specialize in anything, because he was near perfect in everything defensive wise. He was a defensive super human.

The other thing they all had in common was that due to their lack of height they were defensive liabilities, except for Wallace who was an offensive liability.
As far as Russell being perfect defensively, he once said he would let Wilt score for the first three quarters so he'd have energy in the fourth quarter to shut him down.  If he was so great why wouldn't he shut him down the whole game?
Russell was great, he has 11 rings, and you can't take that away from him.  But he also had better teammates and lesser athletes to compete against.  

[Bingbangbarros]

Seriously, go on youtube and watch some old Celtics games. They are available. Then tell me how you can seriously choose Russel over Jordan. He was a great defender and teammate in his era no doubt but how could you not take someone like Hakeem or Shaq who could dominate on both ends.

[BballTim]

Seriously, go on youtube and watch some old Celtics games. They are available. Then tell me how you can seriously choose Russel over Jordan. He was a great defender and teammate in his era no doubt but how could you not take someone like Hakeem or Shaq who could dominate on both ends.

  Did Shaq ever really dominate on both ends? I don't think he was known as an all-world defender.

[Bingbangbarros]

Shaqs defense was better than Russels offense by far.There were years when he was a dominant defender.

[BballTim]

Shaqs defense was better than Russels offense by far.There were years when he was a dominant defender.

  Dominant is something of a stretch. I think there were also years when Russell was the second leading scorer on the Celts.  I don't think he was a great scorer but people are somewhat exaggerating his poor offensive play.

[syfy9]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STc7gGpGsWU&feature=related

Start the video around 6:30, watch the block around the 7:00 mark. 


On multiple occasions, Russell blocked jump shots, and in every block, the Celts gained possession. Hardly any drives were made, and any that were were changed by Russell. Another thing I found out is that Cousy is a passing genius.

[greg_kite]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STc7gGpGsWU&feature=related

Start the video around 6:30, watch the block around the 7:00 mark. 


On multiple occasions, Russell blocked jump shots, and in every block, the Celts gained possession. Hardly any drives were made, and any that were were changed by Russell. Another thing I found out is that Cousy is a passing genius.

It's established he was a great defensive player, maybe the best ever.  But for the first five minutes of the video the "greatest basketball player ever" had the ball in his hands for a grand total of two seconds.  At the 5:40 mark he misses a bunny with 6'5" Elgin Baylor making a weak attempt at covering him. 

Later in the video he doesn't even guard his own man, giving him a jumper so he can get the rebound (which he did).  You're going to say he was "psyching out" the guy by daring him to shoot but for anyone saying he was a "super human" defender he would have been right on the guy and blocked him again.  Leaving him open is understandable, I'm just refuting the argument that he was such an unbelievable defender that it makes up for his lack of offense.

[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).

  If Harper was such a scoring threat he would have averaged more than 7 a game in the year MJ only played the last 17 games of the season.

You mean the year he played less then 20 minutes a game.  If you double his minutes he is at 15 a game, still less then on the Clippers, but respectable.  And that Bulls team still had Pippen, Kukoc, Armstrong, Kerr, etc.  He went from the #1 option to the 5th option and had his minutes cut in half. 

[BballTim]

  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).

  If Harper was such a scoring threat he would have averaged more than 7 a game in the year MJ only played the last 17 games of the season.

You mean the year he played less then 20 minutes a game.  If you double his minutes he is at 15 a game, still less then on the Clippers, but respectable.  And that Bulls team still had Pippen, Kukoc, Armstrong, Kerr, etc.  He went from the #1 option to the 5th option and had his minutes cut in half. 

  His scoring rate that year was roughly Rondo's career average. But, seriously, he's supposedly a scorer on a team that lost the focal point of it's offense (also a guard) and his scoring rate drops and his minutes get cut. He's sitting on the bench while players like BJ Armstrong and Steve Kerr are playing and you're touting him as a player that's going to dominate DJ and Danny.

[Moranis]

I know Russell was a great defensive player, but was he that much better than other defensive "specialists" over the years?  Defense is great and "wins championships" but you still need to outscore the other guy.

Forget Jordan, I don't even think Russell would be better than Dwight Howard if he played today.  The best big guys still have to score and that just wasn't Russells strength.  He would have to be superhuman defensively just to offset his offensive weakness.  And at 6-9 215 there is no way he would be that.

  I'd like to point out that you're talking about a 5 time league MVP. I'd also like to point out that Wilt Chamberlain won the league MVP in 1959-60. In the next three years he had the three highest scoring years in nba history as well as two of the three highest rebounding years ever. Russell won the MVP in all three of those years, including when Wilt scored 50 a game. This was before my time, but people considered what Russell did to be more valuable than the most dominating stretch of individual production the league has ever seen. It's not like there were no great offensive players back then, it's not like Wilt never won MVP awards. It seems that your estimation of Russell's impact was far less than the people who watched him play thought it was.

It is widely rumored that because Wilt was such an a** that the other players in the league wouldn't vote for him and hence why Bill was winning all those MVP awards.  It wasn't until Wilt went to Philly when his perception started to change around the league amongst other players and hence why Wilt won 3 straight MVP's in Philly.

  As I pointed out, Wilt won the MVP the year before Russell won those three MVPs.

  

Yep, as a rookie before his personality really came to light.

There is a reason Wilt was the 1st Team All NBA selection but not the MVP in pretty much every season Bill won the MVP award.  The players just didn't like Wilt, the writers didn't have the same agenda and actually based it on the season.  Hence the 1st Team All NBA (from the writers) and not the MVP (from the players).

Take 60-61, Wilt led the league in points, rebounds, FG%, win shares, etc. and was 1st team all NBA, but finished 4th in MVP voting (Pettit was 2nd, Baylor was 3rd).  Bill won the MVP but was 2nd Team All NBA, with Wilt, Pettit, Baylor, Oscar, and Cousy as the 1st team selections.