Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?

[BballTim]

While I can certainly understand some peoples' sentiment is that Russell is better than MJ, here is how I see it.

Bill Russell is the greatest champion of all time and one of the greatest basketball players of all time.

Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time.

I think the two can be separated and don't necessarily go hand in hand.

My two cents.

  I think if you moved Magic or Bird in time so they were in their prime in the 90s and not the 80s whoever was left behind would be known as the greatest ever.

[Finkelskyhook]

And that team did not struggle at all with the Mourning Heat, the Ewing/Oakley Knicks, the O'Neal/Grant Magic, or the Kemp/Schrempf Sonics losing just 3 games total (1 to the Knicks, 2 to the Sonics).  Now granted those teams didn't have quite the versatility of the Lakers and Celtics of the 80's down low, but they were all anchored with HOF talent (though Kemp blew his and Mourning got sick so they probably don't get into the HOF). 

  That team didn't really stop Ewing, O'Neal or Kemp, those teams were just weak aside from those players. Look at some of the guys that were starting or getting major minutes, it's pretty sad. Longley or Wennington can't handle Parish, Rodman didn't have the size to cover Kevin and Bird would still be Bird. The Bulls could cope with one good big by not letting them go way above their average and not letting the Oakley/Grant/Shrempfs of the world kill them but they would have been vastly outmatched on the front line against the Celts.
 

The Magic and Sonics were both pretty darn good top to bottom. 

Sure the Bulls would have struggled with Chief and McHale, and Bird was always Bird, but I don't see the Celtics stopping Jordan either.  In the course of a series it is about give and take and I think that Bulls team would have done very well against most Celtics teams.  Take 83/84, if you put Maxwell on Jordan, who guards Pippen (Bird doesn't have the quickness)?  If you put Maxwell on Pippen, then Jordan has a field day against DJ or Henderson.  Harper would just post up Ainge or DJ all day long.  Team games are about matchups and the Bulls pose significant problems there.  I also don't think you are giving Longley and Wennington enough credit.  They were both credible defenders of true interior scorers.  They wouldn't stop Parish by any stretch, but would make life difficult on him.  Rodman would annoy the crap out of McHale just as he did everyone else.  He wouldn't shut McHale down (but no one could), but he would give him problems with his quickness and surprising strength (and if I recall correctly they did in fact play against each other a number of times when Rodman was on the Pistons and if memory serves Rodman did as well on him as anyone in their actual direct head to head situations). 

That Bulls team was as good as any team in NBA history and would match-up very well against any other all time great team.  Yes the league was watered down some in the 90's, yes they didn't have a big time interior scorer, but from top to bottom that team would be match-up hell for just about any other team in history.

If the Bird teams play the best Jordan teams during the 80s, it's no contest.  Because it's a level playing field and nobody plays by the rules and antics only Jordan got away with.  

If they play during Jordan's era it's competitive only because of what Jordan got away with.

 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.

Hard to tell if Harper was or wasn't a scoring threat at that point.  He barely got the ball

While I can certainly understand some peoples' sentiment is that Russell is better than MJ, here is how I see it.

Bill Russell is the greatest champion of all time and one of the greatest basketball players of all time.

Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time.

I think the two can be separated and don't necessarily go hand in hand.

My two cents.

  I think if you moved Magic or Bird in time so they were in their prime in the 90s and not the 80s whoever was left behind would be known as the greatest ever.

By whom?

What few who were privelidged to watch all 3 eras...At least this person...Doesn't see it being close.  Russell played on a level playing field where the officials actually officiated by one rulebook.  He excelled in that environment better than anybody before or after.  Bird and earvin competed in a somewhat watered down environment and excelled greatly with the same level officiating.  Jordan may not have needed what he got.  But he was officiated in such a ridiculously biased manner we'll never know how great he could have been.  But the reality is that he achieved his success in a very watered down environment while getting overt preferential treatment.

Russell had Chamberlain...Arguably the most dominant player of any era and was the greatest winner and greatest defender ever.  Bird had earvin and both excelled.  Jordan had the guys in the striped uniforms in a watered down league.  A great basketball player and a great winner....But not in the class of Russell, Bird, Chamberlain, or earvin as a player.  Could've been....But never had to be.  A lot of Jordan's success was handed to him.   

[Donoghus]

While I can certainly understand some peoples' sentiment is that Russell is better than MJ, here is how I see it.

Bill Russell is the greatest champion of all time and one of the greatest basketball players of all time.

Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time.

I think the two can be separated and don't necessarily go hand in hand.

My two cents.

  I think if you moved Magic or Bird in time so they were in their prime in the 90s and not the 80s whoever was left behind would be known as the greatest ever.

Maybe, maybe not.

[Celtics4ever]

I agree some here have drank the NBA kool-aid marketing.  Those Bulls team could not handle the 80's Celtics or Lakers.  MJ could not beat us scoring 61 in the 80's.

Ron Harper would get owned by DJ.  He never won nothing without Jordan.   You can't can't say that about DJ.  He won one in Seattle.  DJ was tough as nails and good post player plus he played C in high school.

Ewing became a high post playing jump shooter in the pros not the low post warrior he was in college.  He is a poor example.  Oakly never was much of a scoring threat.   I saw him more as a dirty work specialist.   Hakeem was the best post player of that era after Jabbar and McHale retired.

I swear some here are really Bulls fans not Celtic fans.

[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.

[BballTim]

And that team did not struggle at all with the Mourning Heat, the Ewing/Oakley Knicks, the O'Neal/Grant Magic, or the Kemp/Schrempf Sonics losing just 3 games total (1 to the Knicks, 2 to the Sonics).  Now granted those teams didn't have quite the versatility of the Lakers and Celtics of the 80's down low, but they were all anchored with HOF talent (though Kemp blew his and Mourning got sick so they probably don't get into the HOF).  

  That team didn't really stop Ewing, O'Neal or Kemp, those teams were just weak aside from those players. Look at some of the guys that were starting or getting major minutes, it's pretty sad. Longley or Wennington can't handle Parish, Rodman didn't have the size to cover Kevin and Bird would still be Bird. The Bulls could cope with one good big by not letting them go way above their average and not letting the Oakley/Grant/Shrempfs of the world kill them but they would have been vastly outmatched on the front line against the Celts.
 

The Magic and Sonics were both pretty darn good top to bottom.  

Sure the Bulls would have struggled with Chief and McHale, and Bird was always Bird, but I don't see the Celtics stopping Jordan either.  In the course of a series it is about give and take and I think that Bulls team would have done very well against most Celtics teams.  Take 83/84, if you put Maxwell on Jordan, who guards Pippen (Bird doesn't have the quickness)?  If you put Maxwell on Pippen, then Jordan has a field day against DJ or Henderson.  Harper would just post up Ainge or DJ all day long.  Team games are about matchups and the Bulls pose significant problems there.  I also don't think you are giving Longley and Wennington enough credit.  They were both credible defenders of true interior scorers.  They wouldn't stop Parish by any stretch, but would make life difficult on him.  Rodman would annoy the crap out of McHale just as he did everyone else.  He wouldn't shut McHale down (but no one could), but he would give him problems with his quickness and surprising strength (and if I recall correctly they did in fact play against each other a number of times when Rodman was on the Pistons and if memory serves Rodman did as well on him as anyone in their actual direct head to head situations).  

That Bulls team was as good as any team in NBA history and would match-up very well against any other all time great team.  Yes the league was watered down some in the 90's, yes they didn't have a big time interior scorer, but from top to bottom that team would be match-up hell for just about any other team in history.

If the Bird teams play the best Jordan teams during the 80s, it's no contest.  Because it's a level playing field and nobody plays by the rules and antics only Jordan got away with.  

If they play during Jordan's era it's competitive only because of what Jordan got away with.

 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.

Hard to tell if Harper was or wasn't a scoring threat at that point.  He barely got the ball

While I can certainly understand some peoples' sentiment is that Russell is better than MJ, here is how I see it.

Bill Russell is the greatest champion of all time and one of the greatest basketball players of all time.

Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time.

I think the two can be separated and don't necessarily go hand in hand.

My two cents.

  I think if you moved Magic or Bird in time so they were in their prime in the 90s and not the 80s whoever was left behind would be known as the greatest ever.

By whom?

What few who were privelidged to watch all 3 eras...At least this person...Doesn't see it being close.  Russell played on a level playing field where the officials actually officiated by one rulebook.  He excelled in that environment better than anybody before or after.  Bird and earvin competed in a somewhat watered down environment and excelled greatly with the same level officiating.  Jordan may not have needed what he got.  But he was officiated in such a ridiculously biased manner we'll never know how great he could have been.  But the reality is that he achieved his success in a very watered down environment while getting overt preferential treatment.

Russell had Chamberlain...Arguably the most dominant player of any era and was the greatest winner and greatest defender ever.  Bird had earvin and both excelled.  Jordan had the guys in the striped uniforms in a watered down league.  A great basketball player and a great winner....But not in the class of Russell, Bird, Chamberlain, or earvin as a player.  Could've been....But never had to be.  A lot of Jordan's success was handed to him.    

  Sorry, I meant by the people who claim MJ was the best ever, not the Russell crowd.

[ballin]

Who's greater? Nobody can even agree on what "great" really means in the first place. So what is it that you're trying to rank?

But let's be realistic about one thing: if you were building a modern team you'd have to pick Jordan over Russell.

Yes, Russell was dominant in his era, but it would be disingenuous to pretend that players haven't gotten better, faster, and stronger. And yes, that's skill-wise as well.*

*Somebody is inevitably going to disagree with this statement because they don't understand statistics, so I'll preemptively respond:

Let's start with the underlying fact: far fewer people played basketball in the 50s and 60s than today. Not only was the population in the US smaller (and it wasn't played internationally) it was simply less popular than it is today. Erego, it's undeniable that far more people play the game today.

After establishing that underlying fact, we make one assumption: that players in the 50s/60s trained and practiced as hard as modern athletes. In reality, this is almost certainly untrue. Very few of them even lifted weights. But I'm assuming it's true to give the benefit of the doubt to the 50s/60s players. We make this assumption in order to establish a ground of comparison where the only difference between the eras is the number of players that the league is recruiting from.

So we draw our conclusion: ceteris paribus (all things being equal) the fact that the modern basketball players are drawn from a larger pool means that they are more likely to be rare specimens of special talent/size/strength/ability.

Since my point might not be entirely clear I'll make an example. Say you had to make a basketball team out of the first 15 people you see. Your recruiting pool is very, very small, and you're stuck with what you've got. On the other hand, I'm allowed to select from the next 1000 people I randomly encounter. Now, unless you happened to be very lucky and you're hanging out in a college basketball gym as you read this, I'm probably going to be able to create a much better, taller, faster, stronger team since I have more options to choose from. That's the modern NBA, while your situation is NBA of the 50s/60s.

Statistically, the larger the pool of recruits the better the elite athletes will be.

And obviously, this applies to talent level as well. If I have each of my 1000 recruits shoot 100 3-pointers you better believe I'm going to find a couple of budding Ray Allens in there somewhere. You'd be lucky if one of the players out of your 15 can even hit 3 pointers at a rate of 25%.

[Celtics4ever]

almost double rings of Jordan.......Russell wins

I define greatness as championships.

Harper was a good scorer in LA and CLE but he played a minimal role with the Bulls.  He was on the downside of his career.

I will say this an all time Bull's team vs. an all time Celtic team would be a slaugheter for the bulls.

[BballTim]

Who's greater? Nobody can even agree on what "great" really means in the first place. So what is it that you're trying to rank?

  Agreed.

But let's be realistic about one thing: if you were building a modern team you'd have to pick Jordan over Russell.

Yes, Russell was dominant in his era, but it would be disingenuous to pretend that players haven't gotten better, faster, and stronger. And yes, that's skill-wise as well.*

*Somebody is inevitably going to disagree with this statement because they don't understand statistics, so I'll preemptively respond:

Let's start with the underlying fact: far fewer people played basketball in the 50s and 60s than today. Not only was the population in the US smaller (and it wasn't played internationally) it was simply less popular than it is today. Erego, it's undeniable that far more people play the game today.

  I don't really know that you could show this to be true. It's undeniable that kids today spend less time participating in athletics (not just organized athletics) than they did before xbox, playstation, cell phones, cable tv and the like.

After establishing that underlying fact, we make one assumption: that players in the 50s/60s trained and practiced as hard as modern athletes. In reality, this is almost certainly untrue. Very few of them even lifted weights. But I'm assuming it's true to give the benefit of the doubt to the 50s/60s players. We make this assumption in order to establish a ground of comparison where the only difference between the eras is the number of players that the league is recruiting from.

  The one assumption that you make is clearly false, you even admit it. And it doesn't give the benefit of the doubt to the older players but to the modern players because putting those older players on modern teams with modern training and nutrition would certainly improve their level of play.

So we draw our conclusion: ceteris paribus (all things being equal) the fact that the modern basketball players are drawn from a larger pool means that they are more likely to be rare specimens of special talent/size/strength/ability.

  Think about this though. MJ was born in the 60s into a growing population. He came into the league in the 80s and the league was much more popular during the Bird/Magic/Jordan years than it was during the 60s and 70s. So more kids grew up in the 80s and 90s than in the 60s and 70s, and basketball was much more popular.

  One can apply the same logic that you did and come to the obvious conclusion that players that came into the league in the last 15 years or so would be better than their counterparts that entered the league in the early-mid 80s, and the greatest player ever would be someone who entered the league then, not when Jordan did.

  And to think that you started this off with a comment about people disagreeing because "they don't understand statistics". Haha.

  While I agree with you that the average player is better now than in Russell's era, it's also true that Russell/Wilt/Oscar and the like dominated their competition more than the best players today, even MJ. Did MJ ever win a scoring title where he outscored his nearest competitor by close to 20 points? No, because the difference between MJ and other scorers was much less than the difference between Wilt and others. Does being less dominant against better competition make you clearly better?

[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.

[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.

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.

You're right...  But I'll bet having three guys in stripes ignoring Russell when if traveled at will, pushed off at will, and giving him phantom foul calls at will sure  would have improved his offense. 

Imagine the defensive monster Russell could have been if he could have hacked his opponent at will for steals.  Hell..Bird would have been a pretty solid defender if he could have gotten away with the defensive hacking Jordan did.

[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.

[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.

[Neurotic Guy]

What few who were privelidged to watch all 3 eras...At least this person...Doesn't see it being close.  Russell played on a level playing field where the officials actually officiated by one rulebook.  He excelled in that environment better than anybody before or after.  Bird and earvin competed in a somewhat watered down environment and excelled greatly with the same level officiating.  Jordan may not have needed what he got.  But he was officiated in such a ridiculously biased manner we'll never know how great he could have been.  But the reality is that he achieved his success in a very watered down environment while getting overt preferential treatment.

Russell had Chamberlain...Arguably the most dominant player of any era and was the greatest winner and greatest defender ever.  Bird had earvin and both excelled.  Jordan had the guys in the striped uniforms in a watered down league.  A great basketball player and a great winner....But not in the class of Russell, Bird, Chamberlain, or earvin as a player.  Could've been....But never had to be.  A lot of Jordan's success was handed to him.    

TP for the compelling arguement!  I did see all 3 eras, but to be fair, my black and white memories of the Russell era are influenced by my mediocre memory and, given the lack of TV coverage, I didn't actually see many of Russell's games.    

It's true that officiating helped MJ, but dang, he was good.

But comparing a 1962 NBA player with a 1992 NBA player is a little like comparing John L. Sullivan with Muhammed Ali.  My guess is Ali would win.

[syfy9]

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.