Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?

[CelticsFanNC]

Wow, I guess the media had me and an entire generation of fans fooled. That is one strong media.

yes, they are.  never underestimate the power and drive of the American marketing machine.

I feel sorry for anyone that did not get to see the NBA prior to the '88 season for themselves.  So much high quality basketball back then that makes long-time fans long for the old days of the NBA where you actually had to win titles to be considered great and not be annointed by the NBA before you had accomplished anything (ex. Bron).

  I agree.  From about 1980 to 1988 to me were the golden age of the NBA in my mind.  We saw incredibly gifted superstars putting their teams success ahead of personal glory by totally immersing themselves into the team concept.  You had Bird and Magic making passing into an art form.  Watching Bird and Magic raise the level of play of their teammates was a thing of beauty to watch.  There were amazing rivalries both on a personal and team level.  It was basketball being played at it's zenith and played the way it is supposed to be played.

  Then along came Jordan, Stern, Nike and ESPN.  Stern decided to market individual players rather then great teams.  Jordan made tons of money and became a world wide marketing phenomenon while dominating the basketball rather then playing within the team concept as Bird and Magic had done before him.  This caused an entire generation of young ballers to want to be like Mike when the quality of NBA basketball would have been better served had they tried to be like Bird and Magic.

[Coach]

Look, most of you guys seem pretty intelligent.

However, your love of the green has you completely lost on this topic.  This question isn't who dominated their era more, Russell or Jordan.  It's who was the greatest player of all time.  The simple facts are:

• Basketball in the 50's wasn't very good.  Watch the video's  Most guys couldn't dribble with their left hand.
• The league was tiny!!  The biggest guy on any team was around 6'9"
  
• The league was tiny!!  There were only 8 teams, and two rounds of playoffs!  Much easier to dominate a smaller league. (Don't give me the watered down crap.)
  

The better question for the board is:  Who was better, Russell vs Garnett.  That is viable question.

Answer this:  If you put Garnett in the 50's - 60's, and put Russell in the today's league, who has a bigger impact?

I don't think anyone on this board would say that Garnett's impact would be less...but then again,

[CelticsFanNC]

I know it's politically incorrect, and if you dont think there is politics on this site think again, but Wilt is the best player ever in the NBA. The guy is the best rebounder by far the league has seen, 11 rebounding titles. He scored 60 or more points in games more then all other players ever combinded. Did you get that?

Say what you want about his competition level, lack of desire to win or whatever but if you put Wilt on the same C's team that Russ had and given the same level of health for players, you not only have the same or more championships but you have team records that would never be approached again.

  Wilt Chamberlain is only the greatest player of all-time if you take winning out of the equation which most people rightfully will not do.  If anything Wilt was a bit of a disappointment to the teams he played on because when they brought him in they were thinking NBA titles not scoring titles.  He was also well known as a coach killer, a distraction to his team and a malcontent.  He didn't get along with his teammates especially his All-Star level teammates who he had well chronicled feuds with.

 Wilt is a story of what could, or should have been.  This guy was supposed to end the run of Russell and the Celtics the moment he stepped onto an NBA floor but it never panned out that way.  He was the ultimate individual playing a team sport.  The game is played to win not to see which individual can score the most points or gather the most rebounds.  Wilt never quite got that.

  Chamberlain is the poster child for the fact that statistics never tell the entire story. His career in terms of what he accomplished in comparison with what he could have accomplished is quite disappointing.

[Jon]

Again, I'd bring up that the debate about the strength of Jordan's teams compared to Russell's (and Bird's and Magic's, etc.) means pretty much nothing to the larger debate here.  

Jordan played with poor teammates (outside of Pippen), but so did all of his opponents.  I mean look at that horrendous team that Hakeem piloted to the title in '94.  

I think the central question is how Jordan would've done had he had to play Bird and McHale or Johnson and Jabbar instead of Stockton and Malone, Kemp and Payton, or Barkley and KJ with the same mediocre cast of characters around them.  

Jordan was a special player--perhaps the greatest ever--but when the going got tough, he could take over a game in a way that only 10 or so other players have ever been able to.  The problem is, none of those other 10 players were in their prime when Jordan was.  

Sure, he could've hit big shot after big shot playing against Bird or Magic, but if Magic or Bird was there to also hit big shot, after big shot (rather than Karl Malone coughing the ball up in the last 10 seconds of the game), Jordan heroics wouldn't have always been enough.  

Another way to look at it would be to ask yourself how many titles Bird or Magic would've had if the other one didn't exist?  Or how many titles would Duncan have if Shaq was born 10 years earlier?  Or how many titles would Wilt have won if Russell was never born?  With his stats, he would easily be considered above Jordan.  

Jordan may be the greatest ever, but he got extremely lucky to play in an era where no other top 10 player of all time was in his prime.  Consequently, he had a much easier path to his titles than any other top 10 player in NBA history.  

  I do agree with you about Jordan not really having a foil so to speak during his dominant decade that he knew he was going to have to go through as every other Elite player has had.

  I disagree that the strength of his competition is irrelevant though.  It is relevant to this discussion because the main reason Jordan has been gifted his status as the greatest of all-time is due to those 6 titles in a decade.

 6 titles he would have never gotten in any other decade except maybe the 70's which was another odd decade with the NBA competing with the ABA for top talent, an extremely selfish style of play and rampant drug use by NBA players.

  As someone else said, Jordan was in the right place at the right time.  He was a tremendous player dominating in a decade without another legitimate elite superstar as every other player of his caliber had to compete against.  He was there when the ESPN/NBA marketing machine took off collecting the spoils that Larry Bird and Magic Johnson had earned by reinvigorating a dying fan base a decade earlier.  

    Like I said previously, I never saw Bill Russell, my dad did(a Knicks fan all his life) and he calls Russell the greatest basketball player who ever lived.  I did see Jordan, Bird and Magic.  Larry Bird at his peak was every bit as great as Jordan, maybe even better because he did more things to beat you then Jordan did and he made the players around him better at a level Jordan never approached.  Bird's all out all the time style of play ended his career prematurely but I don't know that he should be penalized for that.

My point is that the strength of his superstar competition mattered, but the strength of the depth of teams during his era didn't. 

Here's why:

Were Jordan's Bulls significantly inferior to the great teams of the '80s?  Absolutely.  The Bulls had guys starting on their team that couldn't have made the '80s Celtics and Lakers rosters. 

However, here's the catch.  Bird's Celtics were way better, but played way better competition.  Jordan's Bulls were way inferior, but they played way inferior competition. 

So as far as I'm concerned, it's all even in that regard. 

But as we agreed on earlier, the real problem was that Jordan had no foil.  If Bird had played in the '90s (with inferior teammates due to watering down), he likely would have prevented Jordan from winning all the titles that he did. 

[NickFaldo]

I only got through the first page or two of this thread, so if someone else made this point, kudos to them.

There is no doubt Michael Jordan was one of the greatest of all times. No debate there. However, what must be taken into account when debating who is the greatest of all time is the preferential treatment Jordan received from refs.

Bryon Russell, back in Michael Jordan's face

Fernando Medina/NBAE/Getty Images
 
(excerpt)When they played previously, Russell says, Jordan got special treatment from the referees. For instance, video suggests that Jordan cleared space for his famous 1998 title-winning shot pictured above by shoving Russell in the backside. "Referees?" asks Russell? "It was Jordan rules. Nobody was going to call that. If we had different referees ... they all would have let that go. Unless they wasn't a Michael Jordan fan. And if you wasn't a Michael Jordan fan in that era, you didn't love basketball."

Charles Oakley: Michael Jordan got away with a lot of things (Ref related)

By FRED KERBER

WHAT FOUL? Charles Oakley fouls Michael Jordan during the 1996 playoffs. The ex-Knick says Jordan, his friend and rival, got preferential treatment from NBA refs, backing up a claim by referee Tim Donaghy.

June 15, 2008 -- New York Knicks favorite Charles Oakley, a veteran of the celebrated New York-Chicago series of the '90s, said he believes NBA officials and league executives exert too much control over the outcome of games. Oakley also said he feels the biggest surprise in the allegations by disgraced referee Tim Donaghy is that they didn't come sooner...

 
The NBA's love affair with Michael Jordan
 

Michael Jordan is easily the greatest shooting guard to ever play in the NBA.  No one has been able to match both Jordan's point production and strong defensive skills from the shooting guard spot.  On top of that Jordan is a spectacular player who is very entertaining.  NBA Commissioner & Marketing Genius David Stern has bent over backwards to promote his current superstars & sell his product.  Jordan is easily David Stern's biggest prodigy.  The NBA is now in the entertainment business more than being a pure competitive sport.

    Modern NBA officiating has become a joke.  Big market superstars are given special treatment, they are allowed to travel and get away with fouls that the average player gets whistled for.  Michael Jordan has been the most prominent beneficiary of this special treatment.  Many sports writers insist that Jordan pushed off of Bryon Russel to get room for his last shot against the Utah Jazz in the 1998 NBA Finals.  That game had 2 major incidents of blown calls meant to help the Bulls....

Anyone who liked this post, feel free to give me a Tommy Point. 

[syfy9]

I only got through the first page or two of this thread, so if someone else made this point, kudos to them.

There is no doubt Michael Jordan was one of the greatest of all times. No debate there. However, what must be taken into account when debating who is the greatest of all time is the preferential treatment Jordan received from refs.

Bryon Russell, back in Michael Jordan's face

Fernando Medina/NBAE/Getty Images
 
(excerpt)When they played previously, Russell says, Jordan got special treatment from the referees. For instance, video suggests that Jordan cleared space for his famous 1998 title-winning shot pictured above by shoving Russell in the backside. "Referees?" asks Russell? "It was Jordan rules. Nobody was going to call that. If we had different referees ... they all would have let that go. Unless they wasn't a Michael Jordan fan. And if you wasn't a Michael Jordan fan in that era, you didn't love basketball."

Charles Oakley: Michael Jordan got away with a lot of things (Ref related)

By FRED KERBER

WHAT FOUL? Charles Oakley fouls Michael Jordan during the 1996 playoffs. The ex-Knick says Jordan, his friend and rival, got preferential treatment from NBA refs, backing up a claim by referee Tim Donaghy.

June 15, 2008 -- New York Knicks favorite Charles Oakley, a veteran of the celebrated New York-Chicago series of the '90s, said he believes NBA officials and league executives exert too much control over the outcome of games. Oakley also said he feels the biggest surprise in the allegations by disgraced referee Tim Donaghy is that they didn't come sooner...

 
The NBA's love affair with Michael Jordan
 

Michael Jordan is easily the greatest shooting guard to ever play in the NBA.  No one has been able to match both Jordan's point production and strong defensive skills from the shooting guard spot.  On top of that Jordan is a spectacular player who is very entertaining.  NBA Commissioner & Marketing Genius David Stern has bent over backwards to promote his current superstars & sell his product.  Jordan is easily David Stern's biggest prodigy.  The NBA is now in the entertainment business more than being a pure competitive sport.

    Modern NBA officiating has become a joke.  Big market superstars are given special treatment, they are allowed to travel and get away with fouls that the average player gets whistled for.  Michael Jordan has been the most prominent beneficiary of this special treatment.  Many sports writers insist that Jordan pushed off of Bryon Russel to get room for his last shot against the Utah Jazz in the 1998 NBA Finals.  That game had 2 major incidents of blown calls meant to help the Bulls....

Anyone who liked this post, feel free to give me a Tommy Point. 

TP Granted.

Though Jordan's officiating is still controversial, it's not very arguable that Bill Russell wasn't treated fairly. He lived in a time of flat out racism, and that would severely effect calls. Russell once said that he believed that if Red wasn't his coach, he might not even have won any championships at all.

[NickFaldo]

TP Granted.

Though Jordan's officiating is still controversial, it's not very arguable that Bill Russell wasn't treated fairly. He lived in a time of flat out racism, and that would severely effect calls. Russell once said that he believed that if Red wasn't his coach, he might not even have won any championships at all.

Thanks for the TP. I gave you one in return for the Bill Russell story.

I don't buy the argument Bill Russell wouldn't be nearly as good nowadays. Like someone said, he defended against Wilt as good as anyone. He was a pure athlete. Give him a pg like Rondo, and both of them would easily average 20 points a game. 

Doug Flutie could have had an incredible career in the NFL. But there was no Bill Belichick to know how to utilize him. Russ was not that short. He had amazing leaping ability. If Perk is capable of a couple blocks a game at about the same height, Russ could certainly average four or five in today's game. 

I don't think the idea of Jordan Rules is controversial. I think they were fact. There's a good reason David Stern has been voted one of the worst ten sports villains by SB Nation Celtics Blog. He and the refs have ruined the game. I'm with people who wouldn't mind if there are no games this year. We need a new commissioner. We need to bring back the old travel rules. Maybe get rid of the three pointer. Start calling fouls the same whether a player is an all-star or a rookie. That could matter as much as putting together a cba that helps level the playing field.  Maybe forget about drawing the line with a hard salary cap, and make contracts non-guaranteed beyond three years. That to go with fair refs would give any smart GM-Coach tandem a good chance at rebuilding a team within a reasonable amount of time. Sorry for going off-topic. 

[Celtics4ever]

Rings = championships = greatness

Russell has more.....

There are more kinds of greatness than being the best one on five player ever.   We will never know because the NBA didn't keep blocks back then.

I think Russell could play today and do well.   People who say he could not simply do not understand his mindset.   He won two NCAA titles too.  I think it's safe to say that Russ dogged it a lot too.  He did just enough to win and could have easily done more.   The guy was 6'9" with a 48" vertical and a guy like that still does well today especially when he has arm length like Russ had.   He could dunked all the time if he wanted.   But Russ was a predator he used just enough energy to kill you not wasting anything more to showboat.  Will to win both of them had in spades.  But I think today that Russ would do just fine because he had "it". 

Even today he would be one of the most fastest men in the NBA too.  He was back he high jumped 6'10".  If he had modern training he would be even better athlete I would wager.  He ran the 440 in 49.6 and it wasn't his event.


http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=40529

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/325822-bill-russell-is-better-than-michael-jordan


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-f_gVh9h9Q&feature=related

[slamtheking]

I would think the better question is: why would anyone think MJ is better than Russell?

[Moranis]

I know it's politically incorrect, and if you dont think there is politics on this site think again, but Wilt is the best player ever in the NBA. The guy is the best rebounder by far the league has seen, 11 rebounding titles. He scored 60 or more points in games more then all other players ever combinded. Did you get that?

Say what you want about his competition level, lack of desire to win or whatever but if you put Wilt on the same C's team that Russ had and given the same level of health for players, you not only have the same or more championships but you have team records that would never be approached again.

  Wilt Chamberlain is only the greatest player of all-time if you take winning out of the equation which most people rightfully will not do.  If anything Wilt was a bit of a disappointment to the teams he played on because when they brought him in they were thinking NBA titles not scoring titles.  He was also well known as a coach killer, a distraction to his team and a malcontent.  He didn't get along with his teammates especially his All-Star level teammates who he had well chronicled feuds with.

 Wilt is a story of what could, or should have been.  This guy was supposed to end the run of Russell and the Celtics the moment he stepped onto an NBA floor but it never panned out that way.  He was the ultimate individual playing a team sport.  The game is played to win not to see which individual can score the most points or gather the most rebounds.  Wilt never quite got that.

  Chamberlain is the poster child for the fact that statistics never tell the entire story. His career in terms of what he accomplished in comparison with what he could have accomplished is quite disappointing.

And yet when Wilt was actually playing with multiple future HOFers who were healthy in their prime Wilt actually won titles.  One man can't win a title.  His Warriors teams lacked talent.  He finally got talent in Philly and won (though injuries probably derailed multiple titles).  The same in L.A.

Teams win titles.  When you have a team good enough and you don't win that is one thing, but when you just don't have a team good enough it isn't the players fault (Lebron in Cleveland = team not good enough, Lebron in Miami = team good enough so Lebron needs to win there or it really is on him). 

[screwedupmaniac]

Rings = championships = greatness

Russell has more.....

Okay, this is the common argument, and I'm not saying I disagree. However, just to play devil's advocate, Robert Horry has 7 rings...and if the equation provided above is correct, then this means that Robert Horry is "greater" than MJ.

My opinion is that Russell and MJ play two different positions in two different eras, and as a result, it is impossible to compare and contrast who's better than the other. I think Russell's first real battle is defeating the notion that Wilt Chamberlain was better than he was.

After he wins that debate once and for all, I feel that the next step would be comparing Russell to the best big men of the 90's and seeing where he stands in comparison to their skill sets. My reasoning for this is that Michael Jordan dominated every player in his prime (the 90's) at every position on every team.

If Bill Russell's offensive and defensive skill sets were considered at least comparable to a 90's big man like Shaq, then our next step would be to piece a contending team around Russell that would be comparable to the 90's Bulls dynasty. Remember that Russell had a stacked team around him, as did MJ. Neither one of these players won alone.

HOWEVER, I think it's fair to say that in their respective eras, Bill Russell had the better supporting cast. Cousy, Don Nelson, Frank Ramsey, Jim Loscutoff, Havlicek, Satch Sanders, KC Jones, Tommy Heinsohn, and Sam Jones to name a few. In comparison, MJ had Harper, Kerr, Rodman, and Pippen to work with.

My point is this: there are too many ifs and buts to make a definite statement that Russell is better because he had more rings than MJ.

[BballTim]

After he wins that debate once and for all, I feel that the next step would be comparing Russell to the best big men of the 90's and seeing where he stands in comparison to their skill sets. My reasoning for this is that Michael Jordan dominated every player in his prime (the 90's) at every position on every team.

  Dominated who? Bird? Johnson? Duncan or Shaq? He didn't play anyone great. Take Magic out of the league and give Bird his health, the Celts would have been at least as dominant as the Bulls.

[ManUp]

After he wins that debate once and for all, I feel that the next step would be comparing Russell to the best big men of the 90's and seeing where he stands in comparison to their skill sets. My reasoning for this is that Michael Jordan dominated every player in his prime (the 90's) at every position on every team.

  Dominated who? Bird? Johnson? Duncan or Shaq? He didn't play anyone great. Take Magic out of the league and give Bird his health, the Celts would have been at least as dominant as the Bulls.

Barkley, Olajuwaon, Stockton & Malone, Drexler, Payton & Kemp, Miller, Penny & Shaq, Ewing, Robinson, Mourning, etc.

[NickFaldo]

If there were no Jordan Rules, a Ron Artest or Bruce Bowen or Tony Allen or defensive-minded Paul Pierce would have taken care of him. A good team with that kind of Jordan neutralizer would have won it all. Jordan would have been lucky to have won one ring. Jordan's the most overrated player in NBA history. Or it's a toss-up between him and Lebron.

[BballTim]

After he wins that debate once and for all, I feel that the next step would be comparing Russell to the best big men of the 90's and seeing where he stands in comparison to their skill sets. My reasoning for this is that Michael Jordan dominated every player in his prime (the 90's) at every position on every team.

  Dominated who? Bird? Johnson? Duncan or Shaq? He didn't play anyone great. Take Magic out of the league and give Bird his health, the Celts would have been at least as dominant as the Bulls.

Barkley, Olajuwaon, Stockton & Malone, Drexler, Payton & Kemp, Miller, Penny & Shaq, Ewing, Robinson, Mourning, etc.

  First of all, putting any of those people besides possibly Hakeem in Magic's class is laughable. I think you basically made my point. Shaq doesn't count, by the way, because he was too young, the same way MJ's domination of all other players didn't begin until Magic and Bird tailed off due to injury/illness.