Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?

[BillRussellISGOD]

I keep reading how weak the talent on Jordan's teams were. Yet he still managed to beat teams with much more talent.

I also keep reading about a league during the 80's where there were endless amounts of teams with 3 or 4 hall of famers on them. As far as I can remember the Lakers and Celtics are the only teams like that.

Jordan carried his teams to victory over teams who I would argue had  more talent then his Bulls. The Suns were deep, Barkely and KJ were all-stars, Marjerle made it a few times and the rest of the role players were solid, Manning, Ainge, etc. The Blazers were talented, the Sonics had two superstars plus Schrempf, Hawkins, etc. The Jazz had 2 superstar Hall of Famers and strong role players.

I will agree to disagree, but I just feel that people go overboard with how stacked the 80' were and how dilluted the 90's was. Jordan carried his team, with much weaker teammates than Bird and Magic. I find that much more difficult than playing with other all-stars who have your back if you have an off game. Jordan had to play to his potential or the Bulls did not stand a chance. Bird had plenty of off games in the play-offs. Jordan did not have that luxury.

If mj had too do basically ALL the carrying, why did The bulls only drop 2 games when mj retired in 92? The bulls went from 57 wins too 55 wins. The  93-94 bulls still went a full 7 games in the 2nd rd against the NYK, a team that had the 2nd best SRS in the NBA.

Compare this too the celtics in 1970 (the yr Bill Russell Retired)

The 1969 Celtics managed too capture there 11th title in a 13 year stretch (biggest dynasty in north american sports) too 1970 where they won only 34 games. They went from winning 11 titles in 13 yrs, too winning only 34 games!!!!

[Bingbangbarros]

I would never say that MJ had to do all the carrying. I don't have all the answers but Pippen came into his own during that year which says alot about his greatness. I always bring that up when defending Pippen.

I understand that Russell was a great defender and teammate and the team was ridiculously better with him playing but in my opinion a player who is a marginal offensive player cannot be considered the greatest of all time. Jordan did it all. Russell didn't. I understand that he has the rings to prove his greatness. That was a different era. Maybe he was the greatest of his era? I don't know.

[BballTim]

I understand that Russell was a great defender and teammate and the team was ridiculously better with him playing but in my opinion a player who is a marginal offensive player cannot be considered the greatest of all time. Jordan did it all. Russell didn't.

  I would think the player that has the most impact on the game would be the best player.

[BillRussellISGOD]

I understand that Russell was a great defender and teammate and the team was ridiculously better with him playing but in my opinion a player who is a marginal offensive player cannot be considered the greatest of all time. Jordan did it all. Russell didn't.




But, Russell's defense> Mj's offense..

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.



So basically...Russell basically BY HIMSELF, made a meh defense, into HISTORICALLY GREAT Defenses.

Can Mj make an average offense into HISTORICALLY GREAT offenses year after year? No

[BillRussellISGOD]

I understand that Russell was a great defender and teammate and the team was ridiculously better with him playing but in my opinion a player who is a marginal offensive player cannot be considered the greatest of all time. Jordan did it all. Russell didn't.

But, Russell's defense> Mj's offense..

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.



So basically...Russell basically BY HIMSELF, made a meh defense, into HISTORICALLY GREAT Defenses.

Can Mj make an average offense into HISTORICALLY GREAT offenses year after year? No

[Bingbangbarros]

Your clearly show that Russell was great in that era. It was a different game back then.  Comparing eras is difficult. But I don't believe that if you put a 6'9'' Russell in todays game his impact will be the same. Guys are taller, more athletic and more talented. You'll think I"m crazy but I would put so many players ahead of him. I'm not trying to put him down. I am a fan but I don't think the players from that era could even play in todays game.

[ACF]

I understand that Russell was a great defender and teammate and the team was ridiculously better with him playing but in my opinion a player who is a marginal offensive player cannot be considered the greatest of all time. Jordan did it all. Russell didn't.

 I would think the player that has the most impact on the game would be the best player.

11 will always >>>>> 6.

[dark_lord]

Your clearly show that Russell was great in that era. It was a different game back then.  Comparing eras is difficult.

exactly

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

[ACF]

Your clearly show that Russell was great in that era. It was a different game back then.  Comparing eras is difficult. But I don't believe that if you put a 6'9'' Russell in todays game his impact will be the same. Guys are taller, more athletic and more talented. You'll think I"m crazy but I would put so many players ahead of him. I'm not trying to put him down. I am a fan but I don't think the players from that era could even play in todays game.

If Russ played today, he'd have access to the same methods of training, the same technological advances and the basketball knowledge that today's players have. He'd still have the Will To Win, which is probably what sets him apart from most players. He'd be just fine.

[dark_lord]

Your clearly show that Russell was great in that era. It was a different game back then.  Comparing eras is difficult. But I don't believe that if you put a 6'9'' Russell in todays game his impact will be the same. Guys are taller, more athletic and more talented. You'll think I"m crazy but I would put so many players ahead of him. I'm not trying to put him down. I am a fan but I don't think the players from that era could even play in todays game.

If Russ played today, he'd have access to the same methods of training, the same technological advances and the basketball knowledge that today's players have. He'd still have the Will To Win, which is probably what sets him apart from most players. He'd be just fine.

russ having today's technology....scary thought!  2 words....BEAST MODE!     glad he's on our side

[Cswin17]

The better comparison for MJ is not Russell, but Wilt.  You can't divorce a man from the era in which he lived.  The question for MJ is, how would he play against a man who was:
--an average offensive player and poor free throw shooter.
--a great passer.
-- the best defensive player of his era
--the best rebounder of his era
--the best shot blocker of his era
--the seventh best high-jumber in the WORLD, and  an olympic caliber track star.  (He was both more athletic and faster than MJ.)
-- and most importantly, the best TEAM player of his time, supremely gifted in not only improving his team mates, but psyching out his opponents on multiple levels.
The question for Russell, is how well he would play against a man who was:
--the best scorer of his era.
--a great passer
--the best athlete of his era
--the best offensive player of his era and a greatly gifted defensive player as well.
Does this sound familiar?  Russell long played against such a man, and his name was Wilt Chamberlain.  The results speak for themselves.

[CelticsFanNC]

  If the 90's weren't watered down by expansion then why is it the only era in NBA history were one guy dominating the basketball was capable of winning multiple NBA titles?  

A great team that plays within the team concept will beat a team with one guy dominating the basketball in a 7 game series every time IMO.  It's a numbers game.  Five guys playing together as a unit are more difficult to defend then one guy dominating the basketball.  I don't care who it is even Jordan.

  The main reason Jordan's Bull's won 6 titles in a decade is because the competition was mediocre.  The issue with the 90's is that there were no great teams besides the Bull's and even they weren't great enough to compete with Bird's Celtics or Magic's Lakers because even Jordan couldn't have over come the huge talent disadvantage they'd have been facing at every position besides Jordan's including the benches.

  Those who disagree answer me this.  How many titles do you think Jordan's Bull's would have won had they been playing a decade earlier against Bird's Celtics and Magic's Lakers?  I'll be generous and say one.

[Jon]

I think some people are digressing from the central argument here. 

Yes, the '90s were weak.  Yes, Jordan's Bulls would probably be crushed by championship teams from the '60s (where the C's had 8 Hall of Famers at one point), and the '80s (where we see routinely teams with 4 or 5 Hall of Famer), and maybe even today. 

But the fact that the Bulls had such mediocre surrounding players as Luc Longley, Bill Wennington, and Jason Caffey really has little to do with the conversation about Jordan's place in history. 

He had a crappy surrounding cast, but so did the teams he beat. 

The Jazz had such luminaries as Greg Ostertag, Shandon Anderson, and an aging Austin Carr playing key roles on their team too. 

I think the real argument against Jordan is what I stated before: it's not that the league was watered down generally that calls Jordan's greatness into question, it's the fact that Jordan played in an era with no other special players. 

Had he had to face a Bird, a Johnson, or a Russell in the NBA Finals ever, year rather than a different elite, but not all time great player, every year (save Malone twice), I think Jordan would've won fewer titles. 

That doesn't mean he's not the greatest of all time.  But I think it certainly casts some doubt on the idea that he's unquestionably the greatest player of all time. 

[OsirusCeltics]

Your clearly show that Russell was great in that era. It was a different game back then.  Comparing eras is difficult. But I don't believe that if you put a 6'9'' Russell in todays game his impact will be the same. Guys are taller, more athletic and more talented. You'll think I"m crazy but I would put so many players ahead of him. I'm not trying to put him down. I am a fan but I don't think the players from that era could even play in todays game.

Ben Wallace is 6'9" and was the defensive anchor for the Pistons in the "modern era"
Wallace defended Shaq (A guy twice his size) very well in the 2004 Finals when Shaq was on the Lakers. And again in 2005 and 2006 when Shaq was on the Heat

And I think its safe to say Russell >>> Ben Wallace

You can even add Big Baby (when he feels like playing) guards Dwight Howard very well with little to no athleticism

[Bingbangbarros]

Those Celtics and Lakers teams were great teams. We will never no that answer. I feel like people on this board are basing the 80's on the Celtics and Lakers. Like the entire 80's was just 12 nasty guys on every team and every team was just so deep,there were no mediocre or terrible teams. Well thats just not true. The Lakers and Celtics teams were rare stacked great teams. The entire 80's was not 20 incredibly deep teams.

 " If the 90's weren't watered down by expansion then why is it the only era in NBA history were one guy dominating the basketball was capable of winning multiple NBA titles?"

Just think, maybe Jordan was really that good. Therefore, his teams beat other teams.  Defenses designed to stop him could not. He also played great defense and he did pass the ball and make plays for others.

Another thing, this is not like Allen Iverson or someone like that dominating the ball all game. Jordan was efficient, consistent and was one one of greatest competitors ever. That makes a huge difference when you are talking about one guy dominating the ball.  He did it the right way.

Jordans Bulls did compete with Celtics in the mid 80's. He did not have Pippen or much help, and he was much younger. To totally dismiss the possiblity of ever winning against those Celtics or Lakers is crazy.

If Russell had the access to training that today's players have is he going to somehow turn into an offensive player or grow to 7 feet? I don't think so. Its a flawed argument.There are more players his size and taller, more atheletic that I can't see him having the same impact as he did in his time.