Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?

[BillRussellISGOD]

here is more info on russel ive collected....it took me a while but here it is,,


57-58 * No title
Offensive Win shares outside of Russell-12.9
Russell's Defensive win shares-7.7

58-59
Offensive Win shares outside of Russell-11.8
Russell's Defensive win shares-8.2

59-60
Offensive Win shares outside of Russell-14.2
Russell's Defensive win shares- 8.9

60-61
Offensive Win shares outside of Russell-7.9
Russell's Defensive win shares- 11.3

61-62
Offensive Win shares outside of Russell-12.6
Russell's Defensive win shares-11.6

62-63
Offensive Win shares outside of Russell-11.0
Russell's Defensive win shares-12.6

63-64
Offensive Win shares outside of Russell-5.5
Russell's Defensive win shares-16.0

64-65
Offensive Win shares outside of Russell- 10.0
Russell's Defensive win shares- 14.4

65-66
Offensive Win shares outside of Russell-12
Russell's Defensive win shares-11.4

66-67  * No title
Offensive Win shares outside of Russell-22
Russell's Defensive win shares-9.2

67-68
Offensive Win shares outside of Russell-17.6
Russell's Defensive win shares-7.8

68-69
Offensive win shares outside of Russell- 14.4
Russels Dfensive win shares- 9.9

TOTALS from 1957-58 too 1968-1969

Russell Defensive win shares-129
Offensive win shares, outside of russell- 151.9

During Last 10 title Runs- (excluding russells rookie yr as he played in olympics, total off)

Russell Defensive Win shares- 112.1
Offensive win shares, outside of Russell- 117.0

Now, The whole offense outside of Russell COMBINED for only 5 more winshares than Russell BY HIMSELF had on Defense. Russells offense from 57-58 too 68-89 accomplished a mere 12.65 offensive win shares a yr outside of Bill, and only 11.7 Offensive win shares during the last  10 title runs of that era.
Four of the title teams had LESS than 11 COMBINED offensive win shares outside of Bill.

Now, on too fg %/Attempts/ppg
LG RANK
1956-57: 1st in attempts/4th in %/1st in ppg
1957-58: 1st in attempts/3rd in %/2nd in ppg
1958-59:1st in attempts/4th in %/1st in ppg
1959-60:1st in attempts/3rd in %/1st in ppg
1960-61:1st in attempts/8th in %/2nd in ppg
(Up until this time, only 8 teams in nba)
- As u'll notice, the celtics avg finnish in % is 4.4/8, including dead LAST in 1960. Bill had some Great offensive players huh? Or what about Average?

* As of now, there's 9 teams
1961-62:1st in attempts/5th in %/3rd in ppg
62-63: 1st in attempts/9th in %/3rd in ppg
63-64: 1st in attempts/9th in %/2nd in ppg
64-65: 1st in attempts/8th in %/3rd in ppg
65-66:3rd in attempts/8th in %/7th in ppg
- As you see, The celtics finnished dead last TWICE MORE in FG % and finnishing 8th out of 9 2 times, in this 5 yr stretch they finnished on avg of 7.8/9 teams in %, thats not close too AVERAGE, Still thinking he played with sooo many greats??

* As of now, there's 10 teams
66-67: 6th in attempts/4th in %/4th in ppg
* There are 12 teams now
67-68: 7th in attempts/7th in fg %/8th in ppg
* There are 14 teams now
68-69: 3rd in attempts/9th in %/10th in ppg

Sooo, they were 4/10 , 7/12, 9/14 in these 3 in fg %

Now, If Bill russell REALLY had a great supposrting cast, these numbers would be ALOT BETTER. The ONLY reason the celtics did soo good in ppg earlier on was becaus of shot attempts due too high paced basketball.
Boston was SO BAD in some of these yrs on offense, They finnished DEAD LAST or 2nd too LAST in fg % 6 times. They won the NBA Title EVERY SINGLE ONE of those 6 yrs.  Do you know why? Bill Russell
Bostons defense was the SOLE reason they won titles, and the defense outside of Russell? It was AVERAGE. The Boston Celtics Defense pre/post Russell was avg, during russells 13 yrs? It LEG THE LEAGUE IN DRTG 12 TIMES (often by a LARGE margin), 2ND ONCE.

[BASS_THUMPER]

tp for puttin in work

[Eja117]

Why are we even comparing MJ to anybody at all? Comparators obviously did not live the MJ era. For a minute there, I thought that Lebron would be the second coming of MJ due to his physical abilities, but then, his mental toughness set him back. Right now nobody knows if Lebron can recoup from his mental screw-up (which Im sure he is suffering from). MJ was poetry in motion. He was a unique specimen. Like Tiger was a unique specimen till he got his own brand of screw-up.
Russell was also unique in his own kind of world. Arguably the most team efficient center that ever lived - but you could also say that Chamberlain's individual stats stats will never never will be repeated, nor come close to. MJ is MJ. The Ted Williams and/or the Stan Musial(sic) of batting.The Tiger in Golf. The Pelé of soccer. He was a distinctly unique player not to be compared to anybody. So was Larry; so was Magic; so was Kareem;so was Oscar R; so was Babe Ruth; so was the Bear; so was Mickey Mantle. Do not demena their graetness by comparing one with another cause to do that, you have to demean one in order to enhance the other. None of them  deserve that. 

Very philosophical, but I live in America. Americans are obsessed with being the best. Of everything. Ever.  That's why we keep statistics and endless rankings, and then outsource it to VH1 to update it every decade.  95% of everyone knows that. In fact I'm thinking of doing a top ten list of rank lists.

1. VH1's top 100 artists voted on by the artists.
2. AFI's top 100 films of the last 100 years
3. Top 100 NFL football players voted on by the players
4. Top 100 NFL players of all time by NFL films
5. Top 100 films by the AFI updated after 10 years.
6. Top 100 music videos
7. The Oscars. The move from basically a top 5 list to a top 10 list was interesting and made it way too long
8. This list
9. AP top 25 college football
10. Top 100 TV most shocking moments.

The Maxim 100 juuuuusssttt misses the list

[BASS_THUMPER]

Why are we even comparing MJ to anybody at all? Comparators obviously did not live the MJ era. For a minute there, I thought that Lebron would be the second coming of MJ due to his physical abilities, but then, his mental toughness set him back. Right now nobody knows if Lebron can recoup from his mental screw-up (which Im sure he is suffering from). MJ was poetry in motion. He was a unique specimen. Like Tiger was a unique specimen till he got his own brand of screw-up.
Russell was also unique in his own kind of world. Arguably the most team efficient center that ever lived - but you could also say that Chamberlain's individual stats stats will never never will be repeated, nor come close to. MJ is MJ. The Ted Williams and/or the Stan Musial(sic) of batting.The Tiger in Golf. The Pelé of soccer. He was a distinctly unique player not to be compared to anybody. So was Larry; so was Magic; so was Kareem;so was Oscar R; so was Babe Ruth; so was the Bear; so was Mickey Mantle. Do not demena their graetness by comparing one with another cause to do that, you have to demean one in order to enhance the other. None of them  deserve that. 

Very philosophical, but I live in America. Americans are obsessed with being the best. Of everything. Ever.  That's why we keep statistics and endless rankings, and then outsource it to VH1 to update it every decade.  95% of everyone knows that. In fact I'm thinking of doing a top ten list of rank lists.

1. VH1's top 100 artists voted on by the artists.
2. AFI's top 100 films of the last 100 years
3. Top 100 NFL football players voted on by the players
4. Top 100 NFL players of all time by NFL films
5. Top 100 films by the AFI updated after 10 years.
6. Top 100 music videos
7. The Oscars. The move from basically a top 5 list to a top 10 list was interesting and made it way too long
8. This list
9. AP top 25 college football
10. Top 100 TV most shocking moments.

The Maxim 100 juuuuusssttt misses the list

maxim is in the top 5 playa

your pimp hand gettin weak..

[CelticsFanNC]

  From the mid 80's through the end of the Jordan era the NBA expanded from 23 to 29 teams.  


  That means 72 players who weren't good enough to play in the NBA at the start of Larry Bird's career were on NBA rosters at the end of the Jordan dominated era.  That is a whole lot of expansion in a short period of time.

  That waters down every team and the entire product.  It takes years, sometimes decades to bring the competition level back up to the previous level because at any one time there are generally the same amount of superstar level players.

  I don't necessarily blame fans for dismissing all contenders to Jordan's supposed throne.  The media has fed it down the worlds throats without debate for two decades.  Stern and his minions have been the medias partner in crime in the over hyping of Jordan.   I'm not saying he isn't the greatest of all-time.  He probably is but the dismissing of all challengers without discussion that seems to be the habit of most Jordan supporters and most of the media is ridiculous.  Magic Johnson accomplished in a far tougher era almost as much as Jordan did in a watered down era.  I think it is illogical to compare players without including competition level if you are going to base any of your argument on team achievements.

 Magic Johnson's 5 NBA titles were a whole lot harder earned then Jordan's 6 IMHO.  I saw all of them.  Unfortunately I didn't see any of Bill Russell's 11 in 13 seasons.
  

[Edgar]

Why are we even comparing MJ to anybody at all? Comparators obviously did not live the MJ era. For a minute there, I thought that Lebron would be the second coming of MJ due to his physical abilities, but then, his mental toughness set him back. Right now nobody knows if Lebron can recoup from his mental screw-up (which Im sure he is suffering from). MJ was poetry in motion. He was a unique specimen. Like Tiger was a unique specimen till he got his own brand of screw-up.
Russell was also unique in his own kind of world. Arguably the most team efficient center that ever lived - but you could also say that Chamberlain's individual stats stats will never never will be repeated, nor come close to. MJ is MJ. The Ted Williams and/or the Stan Musial(sic) of batting.The Tiger in Golf. The Pelé of soccer. He was a distinctly unique player not to be compared to anybody. So was Larry; so was Magic; so was Kareem;so was Oscar R; so was Babe Ruth; so was the Bear; so was Mickey Mantle. Do not demena their graetness by comparing one with another cause to do that, you have to demean one in order to enhance the other. None of them  deserve that. 

Very philosophical, but I live in America. Americans are obsessed with being the best. Of everything. Ever.  That's why we keep statistics and endless rankings, and then outsource it to VH1 to update it every decade.  95% of everyone knows that. In fact I'm thinking of doing a top ten list of rank lists.

1. VH1's top 100 artists voted on by the artists.
2. AFI's top 100 films of the last 100 years
3. Top 100 NFL football players voted on by the players
4. Top 100 NFL players of all time by NFL films
5. Top 100 films by the AFI updated after 10 years.
6. Top 100 music videos
7. The Oscars. The move from basically a top 5 list to a top 10 list was interesting and made it way too long
8. This list
9. AP top 25 college football
10. Top 100 TV most shocking moments.

The Maxim 100 juuuuusssttt misses the list

maxim is in the top 5 playa

your pimp hand gettin weak..

and please dont forget Numero uno
Celticsblog fantasy draft champ

[OsirusCeltics]

I completely agree with aporel#18's and Jon's post..
Why is Jordan the NBA's angel? I love him in Space Jam, but sorry he's not the greatest ever

-It took him 7 years to win a title. Shouldn't the greatest ever win against everybody? Or was it because it took 7 years for Isiah, Magic, Bird, Erving, and Jabbar to get old so he can finally win in a watered down league?

-How does Jordan being a better scorer than Russell make him the greatest? I hope it doesn't mean George Gervin is better than Russell then

Bill Russell is the greatest ever
-Better rebounder
-Better defensive player
-Played against better competition
-He's even a more well rounded offensive player than Jordan. Passing, moving without the ball, setting picks, offensive rebounds

I think its this era's preoccupation with wing players. The media loves one-on-one skills, flashy plays, dunks, sportscenter highlights. They neglect the importance of big man and what they actually contribute to a team. They aren't "exiting" and don't take your breath away. Yeah.. defense, rebounding, and post scoring is so boring

Jordan has never gone up against a hall of fame worthy centers in the Finals. The Bulls had it easy

Opposing team in the Finals:
1991 Lakers- Vlade Divac
1992 Blazers- Kevin Duckworth
1993 Suns- Tom Chambers/Oliver Miller
1996 Sonics- Ervin Johnson
1997 and 1998 Jazz- Greg Ostertag

Jordan never went up against any competion, never had to face hall of fame size when driving in the lane (only Ewing and Mourning comes to mind). Personally I think he was lucky he didn't face Olajuwon in the playoffs during the 90's

[CelticsFanNC]

  The teams Jordan faced and beat in the NBA Finals as listed above is perfect evidence that the NBA in the decade Jordan dominated was watered down.  The teams he beat had at best two All-Star or Superstar level players on them.  The Blazers and Suns had one each.

  Now compare that to the teams Magic Johnson and Larry Bird had to face a decade earlier.  The top teams of the 80's were stacked. The Lakers and Celtics had at least three All-Stars all of that decade.  The other contenders like the 76ers, Spurs , Rockets and Pistons had two or more All-Stars.  Who cares what the bottom teams looked like because they weren't obstacles in the post season anyways.  The top teams were as stacked as any in NBA history.

    If you want to compare skill sets Larry Bird and Magic Johnson were at least as great as Jordan was.  They could beat you in more ways the Jordan could.  Jordan was an amazing one on one player and scorer, someone we had never seen before.  He was a great man to man defender too.  Bird and Magic were better on the glass. As passers Bird and Magic probably rate in the top 5 in NBA history who more importantly looked to pass as much as score, Jordan was an average passer who only looked to pass if he couldn't find his own shot.   Bird was a better shooter then Jordan and again one of the greatest shooters in NBA history.  Jordan was a good shooter who improved greatly over the course of his career but was never the shooter Bird was.    Magic and Bird made the players around them better, Jordan, not so much.  If Jordan was a better clutch performer then Bird was the margin was minimal.  Bird at his peak was every bit as great as Jordan at his peak.  Bird's all out all the time style of play led to his early demise but is that something he should be penalized for?  I've always hard time doing that.

  IMO this idea that Jordan is the greatest of all-time and no one else belongs in the discussion is media created hogwash.  He may be the greatest ever but the margin is minimal.

[Bingbangbarros]

"Magic Johnson's 5 NBA titles were a whole lot harder earned then Jordan's 6 IMHO.  I saw all of them.  Unfortunately I didn't see any of Bill Russell's 11 in 13 seasons."

I understand the thinking behind this but I disagree. Its been pointed out that Magic and Bird had all-stars on their team. Jordan did not. Bird and Magic were great players who were winning with other greats on their team. Jordan had to put the team on his back year after year. He had Pippen to help and some decent role players.To me, that is more difficult.

Also the teams Jordan faced DID have all-stars and were really good teams.

[Celtics4ever]

Wrong...Teams Jordan faced were weakened by expansion.   Two superstar teams were the norm if that.  In the 80s teams had a lot more stars on them than in the 90s.  Both the 80s Lakers and Celtics would have gave the Bulls a run for their money easily.  There are not too many teams with 3-4 hall of famers that Jordan faced.   That can't be said of Magic and Bird.  Talent dilution really helped the bulls rack them titles up.  Jordan is still one of the all time greats, though, if not the greatest ever.  However, Russell is the greatest team athlete ever.   MJ was a better player.  But Russ is the ultimate team winner.

[CelticsFanNC]

Wrong...Teams Jordan faced were weakened by expansion.   Two superstar teams were the norm if that.  In the 80s teams had a lot more stars on them than in the 90s.  Both the 80s Lakers and Celtics would have gave the Bulls a run for their money easily.  There are not too many teams with 3-4 hall of famers that Jordan faced.   That can't be said of Magic and Bird.  Talent dilution really helped the bulls rack them titles up.  Jordan is still one of the all time greats, though, if not the greatest ever.  However, Russell is the greatest team athlete ever.   MJ was a better player.  But Russ is the ultimate team winner.

  Exactly right.

  In the Early to mid 80's it was possible for the elite teams to put together super rosters with guys who could start elsewhere coming off the benches especially in Boston and LA. 

  By the time the 90's rolled around expansion had made putting together those kind of rosters impossible.  Jordan's Bull's weren't stacked and either were the teams his Bull's dominated.  That's the nature of expansion.

  If titles define a superstars career then Jordan;s six titles were a whole lot easier to get then the 5 Magic won or the 3 Bird won due to a higher level of competition.

  No team with one superstar, an all-star and a bunch of role players was winning anything in the 80's but it won 6 titles in the 90's.  Jordan himself was in his prime and had some of his best seasons statistically during the 80's yet he didn't win anything until the entire league's talent base got watered down due to adding 6 teams to the league.

[Finkelskyhook]

"Magic Johnson's 5 NBA titles were a whole lot harder earned then Jordan's 6 IMHO.

Couldn't agree more.  I despise the narcissistic and morbidly dishonest Earvin Johnson.  But those championships Johnson's team won  came against some of the best players and teams in NBA history.  With even-handed officiating.

[Jon]

"Magic Johnson's 5 NBA titles were a whole lot harder earned then Jordan's 6 IMHO.

Couldn't agree more.  I despise the narcissistic and morbidly dishonest Earvin Johnson.  But those championships Johnson's team won  came against some of the best players and teams in NBA history.  With even-handed officiating.

And I think this is really the point that many of us have been making. 

It's not that Jordan played in a watered down league in general--that's obvious, the Bulls had starters and rotation players who couldn't even make the '80s Celtic and Laker rosters. 

The point is that of the top 10-15 players of all time, none of them played in his prime when Jordan was in his prime.  Magic, Kareem, Bird, and Dr. J were too old when Jordan started winning and Shaq was too young. 

Make him play in an era where he'd have to go through Erving and Johnson and Jabbar (like Bird did) to win a title, and Jordan is lucky to win half the titles he did. 

And some are going to argue that guys like Malone and Barkley would be considered top 10-15 talents of all time if Jordan didn't make them look so bad.  But that's entirely untrue.  If Malone and Barkley were truly on the level of guys like Bird, Magic, and Duncan, they would've been in the Finals a lot more than they were, even if they were losing to Jordan.  The fact that so many different teams came out of the West to face the Bulls really speaks to how bereft the '90s were of any transcendent player besides Jordan. 

[Bingbangbarros]

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.

[BballTim]

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.

  Jordan was playing with 2 HOF teammates when he faced the Jazz. And how many off games in the playoffs did Bird have when he was healthy?