Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?

[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.

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.

  As I pointed out, Wilt won the MVP the year before Russell won those three MVPs.

  

Yep, as a rookie before his personality really came to light.

There is a reason Wilt was the 1st Team All NBA selection but not the MVP in pretty much every season Bill won the MVP award.  The players just didn't like Wilt, the writers didn't have the same agenda and actually based it on the season.  Hence the 1st Team All NBA (from the writers) and not the MVP (from the players).

Take 60-61, Wilt led the league in points, rebounds, FG%, win shares, etc. and was 1st team all NBA, but finished 4th in MVP voting (Pettit was 2nd, Baylor was 3rd).  Bill won the MVP but was 2nd Team All NBA, with Wilt, Pettit, Baylor, Oscar, and Cousy as the 1st team selections.

  While Russell was the best player on the best (by a fairly wide margin) team in the league, finishing well ahead of Wilt's team and easily dispatching the team that swept the Warriors the round before in the playoffs.

[dtrader]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STc7gGpGsWU&feature=related

Start the video around 6:30, watch the block around the 7:00 mark. 


On multiple occasions, Russell blocked jump shots, and in every block, the Celts gained possession. Hardly any drives were made, and any that were were changed by Russell. Another thing I found out is that Cousy is a passing genius.

I think this video is a poor piece to use to try to argue in Russell favor.  The video basically shows him to be non-existent on offense. More than half the time he doesn't even appear to pass half court.  When he does get the ball on an entry pass, you see how uncomfortable he is dribbling, as he looks right at the ground.  It certainly doesn't show him to have a vertical anywhere near 40"s. I'm not saying, that he was trying to jump his highest at any point in the video, but when a player with a 40" vertical jumps to any extent, their athleticism stands out.  As far as blocking jump shots...it's a bit different back then, because even the "jump shots" were almost set shots. 

I dont understand how people can say that the NBA in jordans era was "watered down", when they see the level of athleticism shown in these old videos.  Yes, they had big name HOFers back then, but with the overall level of athleticism that low, anyone with a level of athleticism anywhere near comparable to today would look like a god, and put up HOF numbers. 

Russell was the greatest winner in NBA history, but he was only skilled (at all), on one side of the ball, and he played in an era when the game (and its players) weren't developed. Russell was 6'9"-6'10".  In 1960, there were only 4 players in the whole league over 6'8". One of them was Ed Macauley, the 6'8" center the celts traded to bring in Russell...who was an all star 5 times running at the time, and another was wilt....who many say dominated Russell.  I don't know the other, but I'd be willing to bet he was a pretty dominant player.  If every single player in the league that is nearly the same height as you is also dominating, it's at least as much about the competition lacking, as it is about you excelling.



 

[Inside-Out]

Rodman was quoted back in the day as saying they couldn't have won 70 against the 80's teams.

McHale wrote an opinion piece in either Newsweek or Time in the 90's that claimed expansion diluted the league, and that teams weren't as good/deep.

If anyone can dig up the sources, TP's to you.

I agree with both.

Marketing the player instead of the team meant each team only "needed" one star in the Stern era (or error...).

[GreenFaith1819]

I think these vids may give another depiction of Bill Russell's vertical and his athleticism, especially the ones where he went head to head against arguably the most dominant big ever outside of Shaq (Wilt):

Russell's vertical. Bill really does seem to have that fabled vertical leap:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40iKnaUjz_w

Russell vs Wilt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UsLn9IjEhc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2iR470UVh4&feature=related

It's been mentioned before that Wilt outplayed Bill statistically, but even with that from the footage I've seen Bill was still able to slow him down at times.

Looking at the vids, yes - I really believe that William Russell could compete today in the NBA, and at a high level. He was that smart and athletic.

He could easily pack on 20-30 pounds, I believe, and I don't see that diminishing his athleticism or timing much at all.

His leadership, today, would elevate any team's effort that he played on. He supposedly knew what each teammate's position was on the floor.

I just think, that with the the technology, diet, and training available today William Russell would compete against the best centers in the NBA right now. I say right now, because to DH's credit he is still getting better offensively.

Bill Russell brought the entire package.

And yes - Bob Cousy was a gifted floor general and passer, indeed.

[Moranis]

Rodman was quoted back in the day as saying they couldn't have won 70 against the 80's teams.

McHale wrote an opinion piece in either Newsweek or Time in the 90's that claimed expansion diluted the league, and that teams weren't as good/deep.

If anyone can dig up the sources, TP's to you.

I agree with both.

Marketing the player instead of the team meant each team only "needed" one star in the Stern era (or error...).

There is a big difference between saying they wouldn't win 70 and saying they wouldn't win the title.

[NickFaldo]

Rodman was quoted back in the day as saying they couldn't have won 70 against the 80's teams.

McHale wrote an opinion piece in either Newsweek or Time in the 90's that claimed expansion diluted the league, and that teams weren't as good/deep.

If anyone can dig up the sources, TP's to you.

I agree with both.

Marketing the player instead of the team meant each team only "needed" one star in the Stern era (or error...).

I live for Tommy Points. I hope this will do.

This link doesn't seem to provide the original source but backs what you said about Rodman.

Bleacher Report

Even Dennis Rodman, the main reason behind the Bulls success that year, has said they wouldn't have come close to 70 wins, had they played in the 1980s against REAL competition.

For the second part, again I don't have the original source. I wish I had time now to find those. But here goes. Pleas give me some Tommy Points. 

Is it any surprise that the NBA playoffs has a record low TV attendance?

Basketball is NOT as good as it used to be. Kevin McHale said this would happen. He said that expansion of the league would dilute the talent. Couple that with the fact that guys are not going to college to develop and the problem only gets bigger.

[Bingbangbarros]

I hate the whole watered down arguement. I will admit that expansion had an effect on the league but people are basically saying that the league during the 80"s was so deep that every team was stacked which just isn't true. The top teams were obviously deeper but there were PLENTY of horrible teams and there always will be. There was alot of talent during the 90's. The game began to change for the worse during the later half in my opinion but there were many talented teams that deserve credit..Is the current league considered watered down today?

[Finkelskyhook]

I laugh at the assertion that players like Russell and especially Chamberlain couldn't have dominated in any era.  Can you imagine what somebody as fit as Chamberlain could have done in todays NBA with the modern training and nutrition?  Chamberlain would have been a chisled Shaq with twice the athletism and infinitely more offensive talent.  Russell with another 20-30lbs could have excelled at least at the level of today's stars athletically at any one of 3 positions.  With the same will to win that he had then...They would have been as great in this era as they were then...Maybe greater.

And neither would have needed help in order to be great.

[GreenFaith1819]

I laugh at the assertion that players like Russell and especially Chamberlain couldn't have dominated in any era.  Can you imagine what somebody as fit as Chamberlain could have done in todays NBA with the modern training and nutrition?  Chamberlain would have been a chisled Shaq with twice the athletism and infinitely more offensive talent.  Russell with another 20-30lbs could have excelled at least at the level of today's stars athletically at any one of 3 positions.  With the same will to win that he had then...They would have been as great in this era as they were then...Maybe greater.

And neither would have needed help in order to be great.

Agreed.

Imagine Russ, in his prime, under today's parameters, manning center in Boston next season, alongside KG, Glen and JO?

LA's got twin towers and all, but they wouldn't stand a chance against that lineup.

Wilt would be a monster, too..no doubt about that.

[dtrader]

I think these vids may give another depiction of Bill Russell's vertical and his athleticism, especially the ones where he went head to head against arguably the most dominant big ever outside of Shaq (Wilt):

Russell's vertical. Bill really does seem to have that fabled vertical leap:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40iKnaUjz_w

Looking at the vids, yes - I really believe that William Russell could compete today in the NBA, and at a high level. He was that smart and athletic.

He could easily pack on 20-30 pounds, I believe, and I don't see that diminishing his athleticism or timing much at all.

His leadership, today, would elevate any team's effort that he played on. He supposedly knew what each teammate's position was on the floor.

I just think, that with the the technology, diet, and training available today William Russell would compete against the best centers in the NBA right now. I say right now, because to DH's credit he is still getting better offensively.

Bill Russell brought the entire package.

And yes - Bob Cousy was a gifted floor general and passer, indeed.

That video also shows me that his vertical is NOT anywhere near 40"  In almost every instance where he jumps, his head is at or below the level of the backboard (which looks like it came down lower under the rim back then, than it does now).  You never see him getting his hands up high on the box above the rim.  At 6-9"-6'10", he's about the same height as DH.  Howard has a 39" vertical, and routinely gets his head WAY above the backboard, often getting it around the rim. Russell just looks like he has an outstanding vertical because the players he's facing jump like scal.

Also, nutrition, diet, and modern training wouldn't make him a better ball handler than he was, or give him any more post moves (which he seems to have lacked).  The "entire package" is exactly what should be sought, if someone is going to crown the "greatest player ever", and a player that has as many offensive deficiencys as Russell, simply does not pass that test.


Dominant defender..yes.  Everything you would want in a team leader...yes.  Unparalleled winner...yes. Greatest to ever play the game....no.

[BASS_THUMPER]

greatest of all time

and not just cuz he a Celtic.or a ball player..

it's more off the court..no matter what was thrown in his face he had a quest to be the best...played with brothas even tho the klan was strong in his town...


but thats anutha story


reading why who is best all yall make good points..defense rebounding and rings..

made me start looking at who the man was...and bird stood out for me..

search whos the greatest and for sure jordan and  russel  come up..but with a lil bit of bird sprinkled on top


and yeah im...

*drankin*

[syfy9]

Also, nutrition, diet, and modern training wouldn't make him a better ball handler than he was, or give him any more post moves (which he seems to have lacked).  The "entire package" is exactly what should be sought, if someone is going to crown the "greatest player ever", and a player that has as many offensive deficiencys as Russell, simply does not pass that test.


Dominant defender..yes.  Everything you would want in a team leader...yes.  Unparalleled winner...yes. Greatest to ever play the game....no.

What proof do you have that it won't? Nutrition and diet were not very common back in the day. I don't think the players from the 60s had trainers with all sorts of neat yoga techniques and special work out exercises. If he was playing today, he could have learned post moves from Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq, Kareem, Malone, and Duncan. Bill Russell had to start from near scratch.

The greatest player does not mean the "perfect player". Why didn't MJ average 10+ assists a game? Why didn't he dominate the boards? MJ is not the perfect player, but he effects the game drastically. He morphs the defense of the other team, and leads them by utilizing his scoring. Bill Russell morphs the other team's offense, and leads them by utilizing fast breaks.

[dtrader]

Also, nutrition, diet, and modern training wouldn't make him a better ball handler than he was, or give him any more post moves (which he seems to have lacked).  The "entire package" is exactly what should be sought, if someone is going to crown the "greatest player ever", and a player that has as many offensive deficiencys as Russell, simply does not pass that test.


Dominant defender..yes.  Everything you would want in a team leader...yes.  Unparalleled winner...yes. Greatest to ever play the game....no.

What proof do you have that it won't? Nutrition and diet were not very common back in the day. I don't think the players from the 60s had trainers with all sorts of neat yoga techniques and special work out exercises. If he was playing today, he could have learned post moves from Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq, Kareem, Malone, and Duncan. Bill Russell had to start from near scratch.

The greatest player does not mean the "perfect player". Why didn't MJ average 10+ assists a game? Why didn't he dominate the boards? MJ is not the perfect player, but he effects the game drastically. He morphs the defense of the other team, and leads them by utilizing his scoring. Bill Russell morphs the other team's offense, and leads them by utilizing fast breaks.

Dribbling, and post moves are skills.  Improving or developing skills isn't based on diet or nutrition.  If you're trying to ask if I can prove that better granola bars wouldn't give Russell a killer crossover, I don't know what to say lol.  Saying that his handle or post moves would have been better with modern training regiments like yoga or weight training doesnt carry water either because 1- both yoga and weight training took off in the 60's, and 2 - The players he faced had the same training techniques available to them, and often had more developed post moves and better handling.  That being the case, the only explanations would be 1- He didnt practice those areas as much as them...which seems to be knock against him, or 2- Despite his practice, he was never able to get to their level...which is another knock against him.  I'm not saying he wasn't on the level of Hakeem or Duncan.  I'm saying that if you look at game footage of Russell, he really didnt have ANY moves.  He was bigger than everyone, jumped higher than most, and smart enough to keep the ball above his head.  In a league of small unathletic guys, that was more than enough.


And I would never say that Jordan was "the perfect player".  I would however say that he was "the total package", and that there wasnt a single aspect to his game that he didnt polish to the point where it was a strength. As long as dribbling and shooting are a part of the game, Russell can't say the same.

[Who]

If Bill Russell were playing today, I would expect him to play a similar style of play as a Joakim Noah albeit a far more advanced version of Noah.

A 10-12ppg, 15-18rpg, 4-5apg, 4bpg type threat while being a very efficient scorer. Hands down the best rebounder and the best defensive player in the league in addition to being an elite passing big man similar to a Kevin Garnett or a Pau Gasol.

Bill Russell would be what he was in the 1960s = the best facilitator to ever play the game of basketball + the best player in the league today. 

[GreenFaith1819]

dtrader - look right around the 3:00-3:05 point of the clip I posted....man it sure looks like to me that he is awfully close to 40"...I don't think that Bill needed to routinely jump out of the gym to prove he was a superior athlete.

..But anyway the great thing about this thread is the discussion, and points of view.