Author Topic: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?  (Read 89392 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?
« Reply #30 on: July 21, 2011, 06:53:05 PM »

Offline ManUp

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8510
  • Tommy Points: 285
  • Rondo doesn't believe in easy buckets...
From what I've read Russell is a faster, shorter, better shotblocking KG with worse scoring.


You should have said, "From what I've read, KG is a slower, taller, worse shotblocker than Russell with better scoring."

 KG is still a hall of famer/one of the greatest defensive minds ever to play the game. Given that, Bill Russell is still so much more better than him. That's saying a lot.

Is that opinion formed from seeing Russell play or from reading articles, looking at stats, highlight, and accolades? A serious question, BTW.

Re: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?
« Reply #31 on: July 21, 2011, 07:48:42 PM »

Offline angryguy77

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7623
  • Tommy Points: 630
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.


This is right on the money-tp.
Softened on Joe.

Re: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?
« Reply #32 on: July 21, 2011, 08:02:43 PM »

Offline syfy9

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1873
  • Tommy Points: 291
  • We may as well put Tyrion in at center.
From what I've read Russell is a faster, shorter, better shotblocking KG with worse scoring.


You should have said, "From what I've read, KG is a slower, taller, worse shotblocker than Russell with better scoring."

 KG is still a hall of famer/one of the greatest defensive minds ever to play the game. Given that, Bill Russell is still so much more better than him. That's saying a lot.

Is that opinion formed from seeing Russell play or from reading articles, looking at stats, highlight, and accolades? A serious question, BTW.

I took the converse of your statement, which I agree on, and stated it's converse. I'm putting what you said as my postulate...
From what I've read Russell is a faster, shorter, better shotblocking KG with worse scoring.
...Plus my knowledge of KG, an great defensive mastermind I watched in his prime, to conclude Bill Russell was even more amazing than the amazing Kevin Garnett because you said...
From what I've read Russell is a faster, shorter, better shotblocking KG with worse scoring.

I like Marcus Smart

Re: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?
« Reply #33 on: July 21, 2011, 09:44:13 PM »

Offline Jon

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6500
  • Tommy Points: 385
From what I've read Russell is a faster, shorter, better shotblocking KG with worse scoring.

IMO, that's not better than Jordan.

The athleticism gap between guys like Russell, Wilt, and the rest of the NBA was probably huge. I think most would agree that they would not be as effective in Jordan's era or today as they were in the 1950s. While Russell would still be a top athlete in any era the gap would be a lot smaller between him and other guys.

I have to admit I'm very bias against pre-80s basketball. I think Rondo would be Bob Cousy's worst nightmare on a bball court. I just don't think those guys had the athletes to keep up with todays guys. For the most part I think players from the 1950s jumping to the modern game would look like JJ Reddick when he made his jump to the pros.



Though think about it this way.  In Kareem Abdul Jabbar's rookie year '69-70, Russell had just retired and Wilt Chamberlain was still playing.  Kareem retired in '89, putting up 24 ppg as late as '85-86 at the age of 38. 

If players from Russell's era like Chamberlain couldn't dominate in the modern game, Jabbar should've begun to suck in the '80s after dominating the late '60s and early '70s.  And while his number dropped slightly, his per 36 minutes stayed close to the same and most of his drop can be attributed to being in his mid-to-late 30s.  And I think the fact that Kareem in his late 30s could still put up 20+ ppg in Jordan's era, while doing the same in (a year after) Russell's, clearly shows that Russ could've dominated in the '80s just as much as he did in the '50s and '60s. 

Re: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?
« Reply #34 on: July 21, 2011, 09:45:20 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
Why can't you both be right?...where is it written two players can't have equal value to their teams and league.
I'll be a dead euro in my grave before I agree to a tie.

Re: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?
« Reply #35 on: July 21, 2011, 09:47:18 PM »

Offline Bingbangbarros

  • Joe Mazzulla
  • Posts: 148
  • Tommy Points: 6
I'm only 30 and watch games on youtube, but Its my speculation that Jordan played in an era where 80% of the league was probably better than Russell's era. This is not a knock on Russell. We're comparing a SG and a C. A 6'9'' center. The players of today would swat slow, unatheletic white guys shots for breakfast. Russell  was great in his era, you can't deny that but come on. His teams were stacked at the time. The Celtics were  favorite to win in most years. He was limited offensivley and his defense was great but really now much better could he have been than Howard or KG for that matter. Jordan is clearly the greatest and it shouldn't even be a debate. I don't want to hear the argument that you cant compare eras because you can or even  that current players are better now because of nutrition or better knowledge.

Re: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?
« Reply #36 on: July 21, 2011, 09:52:26 PM »

Offline Bingbangbarros

  • Joe Mazzulla
  • Posts: 148
  • Tommy Points: 6
From what I've read Russell is a faster, shorter, better shotblocking KG with worse scoring.

IMO, that's not better than Jordan.

The athleticism gap between guys like Russell, Wilt, and the rest of the NBA was probably huge. I think most would agree that they would not be as effective in Jordan's era or today as they were in the 1950s. While Russell would still be a top athlete in any era the gap would be a lot smaller between him and other guys.

I have to admit I'm very bias against pre-80s basketball. I think Rondo would be Bob Cousy's worst nightmare on a bball court. I just don't think those guys had the athletes to keep up with todays guys. For the most part I think players from the 1950s jumping to the modern game would look like JJ Reddick when he made his jump to the pros.



Though think about it this way.  In Kareem Abdul Jabbar's rookie year '69-70, Russell had just retired and Wilt Chamberlain was still playing.  Kareem retired in '89, putting up 24 ppg as late as '85-86 at the age of 38. 

If players from Russell's era like Chamberlain couldn't dominate in the modern game, Jabbar should've begun to suck in the '80s after dominating the late '60s and early '70s.  And while his number dropped slightly, his per 36 minutes stayed close to the same and most of his drop can be attributed to being in his mid-to-late 30s.  And I think the fact that Kareem in his late 30s could still put up 20+ ppg in Jordan's era, while doing the same in (a year after) Russell's, clearly shows that Russ could've dominated in the '80s just as much as he did in the '50s and '60s. 

Jabbar was obviously great. Russell would be playing in an era where he was 6'9'' and going against many more players who were taller and more atheletic than his opponents of the 50's and 60's. He probably would have been a great role player I'm sure but he was not a scorer or anything close to a dominant offensive player. Its a weak comparison with Kareem because Kareem was such a dominant scorer and also blocked shots and rebounded.

Re: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?
« Reply #37 on: July 21, 2011, 10:01:11 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
Russell also led his college team to two championships as opposed to MJ getting a big shot as a freshmen. That included 55 straight wins. John Wooden called him the best defensive player he ever saw - granted that might have been in the 50s before Kareem and Walton

Was captain of the 56 Olympic team. Won gold winning games by an average of 53.5 ppg - without professional players.

The NBA Finals MVP award in named after him

Won two rings as a head coach/player.   Did MJ ever coach a team to a ring? As a player?

first black coach in major US pro sports

This is kinda like comparing Babe Ruth with Barry Bonds or something.  It's not close. Not in terms of achievement.

If you want to be nicer maybe it's more like Brady vs Manning, but that's not really close either

Also during all this Russell dealt with major racism while MJ had to deal with hero worship and multi-million dollar contracts

Re: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?
« Reply #38 on: July 21, 2011, 10:02:54 PM »

Offline Jon

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6500
  • Tommy Points: 385
From what I've read Russell is a faster, shorter, better shotblocking KG with worse scoring.

IMO, that's not better than Jordan.

The athleticism gap between guys like Russell, Wilt, and the rest of the NBA was probably huge. I think most would agree that they would not be as effective in Jordan's era or today as they were in the 1950s. While Russell would still be a top athlete in any era the gap would be a lot smaller between him and other guys.

I have to admit I'm very bias against pre-80s basketball. I think Rondo would be Bob Cousy's worst nightmare on a bball court. I just don't think those guys had the athletes to keep up with todays guys. For the most part I think players from the 1950s jumping to the modern game would look like JJ Reddick when he made his jump to the pros.



Though think about it this way.  In Kareem Abdul Jabbar's rookie year '69-70, Russell had just retired and Wilt Chamberlain was still playing.  Kareem retired in '89, putting up 24 ppg as late as '85-86 at the age of 38. 

If players from Russell's era like Chamberlain couldn't dominate in the modern game, Jabbar should've begun to suck in the '80s after dominating the late '60s and early '70s.  And while his number dropped slightly, his per 36 minutes stayed close to the same and most of his drop can be attributed to being in his mid-to-late 30s.  And I think the fact that Kareem in his late 30s could still put up 20+ ppg in Jordan's era, while doing the same in (a year after) Russell's, clearly shows that Russ could've dominated in the '80s just as much as he did in the '50s and '60s. 

Jabbar was obviously great. Russell would be playing in an era where he was 6'9'' and going against many more players who were taller and more atheletic than his opponents of the 50's and 60's. He probably would have been a great role player I'm sure but he was not a scorer or anything close to a dominant offensive player. Its a weak comparison with Kareem because Kareem was such a dominant scorer and also blocked shots and rebounded.

But that's not the point.  Let's make this much clearer.

Kareem's rookie year, '69-70, the year after Russell retired and while Wilt was still putting up 27-18, Kareem put up 28-14.  

16 years later at the age of 38 and in Jordan's second season, Kareem is still putting up 23 and 6.  Sure, that's a drop off, but Kareem was also 38.  Furthermore, at the per 36 level, his '69-70's number comes out to be 24-12 and his '85-86 number comes out to be 25-7.  

Now, I do realize that Russell and Jabbar were two radically different players.  However, I think this totally eradicates the notion that Russell was playing against a bunch of unathletic, subpar players that modern players would walk all over.  

If that was the case, Kareem would've been putting up much bigger numbers at the beginning of his career and certainly wouldn't have been capable of dominating the modern era in his mid-to-late 30s.  


Re: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?
« Reply #39 on: July 21, 2011, 10:12:53 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
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?

Re: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?
« Reply #40 on: July 21, 2011, 10:16:06 PM »

Offline syfy9

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1873
  • Tommy Points: 291
  • We may as well put Tyrion in at center.
Russell also led his college team to two championships as opposed to MJ getting a big shot as a freshmen. That included 55 straight wins. John Wooden called him the best defensive player he ever saw - granted that might have been in the 50s before Kareem and Walton

Was captain of the 56 Olympic team. Won gold winning games by an average of 53.5 ppg - without professional players.

The NBA Finals MVP award in named after him

Won two rings as a head coach/player.   Did MJ ever coach a team to a ring? As a player?

first black coach in major US pro sports

This is kinda like comparing Babe Ruth with Barry Bonds or something.  It's not close. Not in terms of achievement.

If you want to be nicer maybe it's more like Brady vs Manning, but that's not really close either

Also during all this Russell dealt with major racism while MJ had to deal with hero worship and multi-million dollar contracts

Spot on, TP. Russell was the only black person on an all white Celtics team as a rookie. He was discriminated by even Boston itself. In fact, it was so bad, he wrote in "Red and Me", about how he probably would not have excelled as well as he had if he had not had a coach as neutral and had only a desire to win like Red Auerbach. If not for Red, who didn't care about skin color, Russell might not have hung so many banners at our stadium.


EDIT :

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?
I really want to TP you again. If you've watched any footage of Bill Russell, and any footage of a modern day superstar, you'd know Bill would never get fooled twice by the same move. If Kobe decides to go Mamba on him, Bill would easily read his body position/etc.
I like Marcus Smart

Re: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?
« Reply #41 on: July 21, 2011, 10:31:47 PM »

Offline Dante

  • Payton Pritchard
  • Posts: 101
  • Tommy Points: 6
Why is KG better than Russell? Because if you start with a false premise, you can establish anything you want to. Same with the premise that Russell is better than MJ. Same thing. Gimme a break!

Re: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?
« Reply #42 on: July 21, 2011, 10:37:49 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
To me this is just a little like the Barry Sanders vs Jim Brown thing.

On the surface there are major similarities. Similar amount of yards. The only two guys that averaged 5 plus yards per run.

Both retired early.

Then you peel back some layers of history and start adding context and you're like "omg. Jim Brown did this in an era where they played 12 games a year. That is amazing."

Same thing with Babe Ruth vs anyone.

Suddenly you're like "Oh my God. He was a hall of fame pitcher too!"

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

Re: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?
« Reply #43 on: July 21, 2011, 11:54:49 PM »

Offline Brendan

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2990
  • Tommy Points: 72
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.

Re: Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?
« Reply #44 on: July 22, 2011, 12:20:49 AM »

Offline Rondo_is_better

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2821
  • Tommy Points: 495
  • R.I.P. Nate Dogg
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.


Offense beats defense -- harf?
Grab a few boards, keep the TO's under 14, close out on shooters and we'll win.