Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?

[tenn_smoothie]

MJ played in the weakest era of the NBA in terms of competitive teams that he had to overcome to win those titles. a "watered-down" league is the best way to describe it.

i have heard it said - and i fully agree - that Jordan's Bulls would have been shut out if they had been in the league during the 80's instead of the 90's. i realize that the original question was a comparison to the 60's - an era of even more concentrated talent than the 80's.

who could that Bulls group have beaten from the 80's ? certainly not the Celtics or Lakers - that's easy. but i also do not see them beating the '83 Sixers and Jordan was obviously unable to beat the late 80's Pistons. and that doesn't include the eastern conference teams that would have taken chunks out of them if they had ever managed to make a finals appearance that decade, like the very good Bucks teams that might have won a title in another era, or the Sixers, Pistons or Knicks teams that Boston had to win death-matches with just to get out of the east in those days.

i'd say those teams were a just a little better than Craig Ehlo's Cavs.

They lost game 7 in Detroit in 89-90 and then swept the Pistons in 90-91.  The Pistons didn't age that fast.  The simple reality is Jordan didn't get Pippen and Grant until the 87-88 season.  It took them a couple of seasons to grow into elite NBA players and learn how to play together, when they did, they didn't lose playoff series. 

thanks for making my point for me  -  those Pistons were the weakest champion of the 80's and they only reached the top after the Celts and Lakers faded with age. then they faded as well - they had spent their primes chasing Bird's Celtics.

[Moranis]

MJ played in the weakest era of the NBA in terms of competitive teams that he had to overcome to win those titles. a "watered-down" league is the best way to describe it.

i have heard it said - and i fully agree - that Jordan's Bulls would have been shut out if they had been in the league during the 80's instead of the 90's. i realize that the original question was a comparison to the 60's - an era of even more concentrated talent than the 80's.

who could that Bulls group have beaten from the 80's ? certainly not the Celtics or Lakers - that's easy. but i also do not see them beating the '83 Sixers and Jordan was obviously unable to beat the late 80's Pistons. and that doesn't include the eastern conference teams that would have taken chunks out of them if they had ever managed to make a finals appearance that decade, like the very good Bucks teams that might have won a title in another era, or the Sixers, Pistons or Knicks teams that Boston had to win death-matches with just to get out of the east in those days.

i'd say those teams were a just a little better than Craig Ehlo's Cavs.

They lost game 7 in Detroit in 89-90 and then swept the Pistons in 90-91.  The Pistons didn't age that fast.  The simple reality is Jordan didn't get Pippen and Grant until the 87-88 season.  It took them a couple of seasons to grow into elite NBA players and learn how to play together, when they did, they didn't lose playoff series. 

  Detroit did age that fast. They won 9 less games in 90-91 than they year before and weren't close to the same team.

Isiah missed about half of the regular season, but was healthy for the playoffs (that attributes a great deal to the change in record).  They were the 2 time defending champions in that season.  Their 3 HOFers were still in their 20's (Isiah, Joe D, and Rodman). 

[Moranis]

MJ played in the weakest era of the NBA in terms of competitive teams that he had to overcome to win those titles. a "watered-down" league is the best way to describe it.

i have heard it said - and i fully agree - that Jordan's Bulls would have been shut out if they had been in the league during the 80's instead of the 90's. i realize that the original question was a comparison to the 60's - an era of even more concentrated talent than the 80's.

who could that Bulls group have beaten from the 80's ? certainly not the Celtics or Lakers - that's easy. but i also do not see them beating the '83 Sixers and Jordan was obviously unable to beat the late 80's Pistons. and that doesn't include the eastern conference teams that would have taken chunks out of them if they had ever managed to make a finals appearance that decade, like the very good Bucks teams that might have won a title in another era, or the Sixers, Pistons or Knicks teams that Boston had to win death-matches with just to get out of the east in those days.

i'd say those teams were a just a little better than Craig Ehlo's Cavs.

They lost game 7 in Detroit in 89-90 and then swept the Pistons in 90-91.  The Pistons didn't age that fast.  The simple reality is Jordan didn't get Pippen and Grant until the 87-88 season.  It took them a couple of seasons to grow into elite NBA players and learn how to play together, when they did, they didn't lose playoff series. 

thanks for making my point for me  -  those Pistons were the weakest champion of the 80's and they only reached the top after the Celts and Lakers faded with age. then they faded as well - they had spent their primes chasing Bird's Celtics.

You mean the Lakers that were the two time defending champions when the Pistons won the title.  In 86-87 Detroit lost by 3 in Boston in Game 7 of the Eastern Conference finals.  The next season they beat Boston 4-2 and lost to the Lakers in the Finals losing the final 2 games in LA by a combined 4 points.  They then won the next two titles and in the first year swept Boston, Milwaukee, and Los Angeles on the way to the title (the Bulls were the only team to win a playoff game losing 4-2 in the ECF). 

Players almost never come in and win a title in their first few years in the league as a main cog of a title team (it happens Magic and Bird did it, but that is the exception not the rule).  They usually take time to develop and hit their primes, which is when the winning happens.

Chicago's primes just happen to be after that of the teams in the 80's, but it certainly doesn't mean they couldn't compete with those teams, they just never had the chance to. 

I mean seriously the 82-83 Bucks (led by Sidney Moncrief and Marques Johnson) swept Boston out of the playoffs that year and you seriously believe the Bulls led by Jordan and Pippen couldn't compete with those teams.  Seriously?  How about the 81-82 Sixers that beat Boston and lost in 6 to the Lakers in the finals (you know the team without Moses Malone that was led by Dr. J and a bunch of solid guards/forwards but no other elite players)?  You don't think the Bulls are on par with that team?  Seriously?

[td450]

Players almost never come in and win a title in their first few years in the league as a main cog of a title team (it happens Magic and Bird did it, but that is the exception not the rule).  They usually take time to develop and hit their primes, which is when the winning happens.

This is simply wrong. If you review the history of NBA championships going all the way back to the 50's, there have been a handful of players who have been dominant and account for about 75% of the titles won. The names are obvious (Mikan, Russell, Jabbar, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan). Jordan and Shaq needed a number of years to break through, but everyone else won a title within their first two seasons.

The reason I don't think the Bulls would have done as well in the 80's is that they depended a great deal on the fact that both Jordan and Pippin could always win their match ups. Teams just couldn't run their offense when they were getting destroyed at both wing positions. Jordan would have been just as dominant in the 80's but Pippin would have to deal with Bird, Worthy and Dr. J, and would have had serious trouble with those match ups. I know Bird torched Pippin the first couple of years.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=birdla01&p2=pippesc01

[BballTim]

MJ played in the weakest era of the NBA in terms of competitive teams that he had to overcome to win those titles. a "watered-down" league is the best way to describe it.

i have heard it said - and i fully agree - that Jordan's Bulls would have been shut out if they had been in the league during the 80's instead of the 90's. i realize that the original question was a comparison to the 60's - an era of even more concentrated talent than the 80's.

who could that Bulls group have beaten from the 80's ? certainly not the Celtics or Lakers - that's easy. but i also do not see them beating the '83 Sixers and Jordan was obviously unable to beat the late 80's Pistons. and that doesn't include the eastern conference teams that would have taken chunks out of them if they had ever managed to make a finals appearance that decade, like the very good Bucks teams that might have won a title in another era, or the Sixers, Pistons or Knicks teams that Boston had to win death-matches with just to get out of the east in those days.

i'd say those teams were a just a little better than Craig Ehlo's Cavs.

They lost game 7 in Detroit in 89-90 and then swept the Pistons in 90-91.  The Pistons didn't age that fast.  The simple reality is Jordan didn't get Pippen and Grant until the 87-88 season.  It took them a couple of seasons to grow into elite NBA players and learn how to play together, when they did, they didn't lose playoff series. 

  Detroit did age that fast. They won 9 less games in 90-91 than they year before and weren't close to the same team.

Isiah missed about half of the regular season, but was healthy for the playoffs (that attributes a great deal to the change in record).  They were the 2 time defending champions in that season.  Their 3 HOFers were still in their 20's (Isiah, Joe D, and Rodman). 

  That team was toast. Anyone who was watching at the time knew that. If you were expecting the Pistons to contend the next year after they lost to the Bulls you were pretty far in the minority.

[Finkelskyhook]

The reason I don't think the Bulls would have done as well in the 80's is that they depended a great deal on the fact that both Jordan and Pippin could always win their match ups.

There's also the minor detail that Jordan, exclusively during his era, was allowed to travel, hack relentlessly on D, push off...etc.

Officiating was actually done by the rulebook in the 80s....Pre-Jordan.

Russell didn't need the official's help to dominate.

Jordan would have been great in any era.  But we'll never know how great he would have been had he been officiated like everybody else.  

[Moranis]

Players almost never come in and win a title in their first few years in the league as a main cog of a title team (it happens Magic and Bird did it, but that is the exception not the rule).  They usually take time to develop and hit their primes, which is when the winning happens.

This is simply wrong. If you review the history of NBA championships going all the way back to the 50's, there have been a handful of players who have been dominant and account for about 75% of the titles won. The names are obvious (Mikan, Russell, Jabbar, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan). Jordan and Shaq needed a number of years to break through, but everyone else won a title within their first two seasons.

The reason I don't think the Bulls would have done as well in the 80's is that they depended a great deal on the fact that both Jordan and Pippin could always win their match ups. Teams just couldn't run their offense when they were getting destroyed at both wing positions. Jordan would have been just as dominant in the 80's but Pippin would have to deal with Bird, Worthy and Dr. J, and would have had serious trouble with those match ups. I know Bird torched Pippin the first couple of years.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=birdla01&p2=pippesc01

Kobe was in his 4th season when he won.  Mikan was in this 3rd/4th (he only played 7 games his first season and it was the year he graduated college).

The rest of the guys you mentioned all joined teams with (or at least won titles with) teams that had at least one  veteran future HOFer on them: Russell (Cousy), Jabbar (Robertson), Magic (Jabbar), Bird (Archibald), and Duncan (Robinson). 

When you are the first HOFer on the team (like Jordan and Shaq) you have to wait to get the other HOFer on there (Pippen and Kobe). 

[td450]

Players almost never come in and win a title in their first few years in the league as a main cog of a title team (it happens Magic and Bird did it, but that is the exception not the rule).  They usually take time to develop and hit their primes, which is when the winning happens.

This is simply wrong. If you review the history of NBA championships going all the way back to the 50's, there have been a handful of players who have been dominant and account for about 75% of the titles won. The names are obvious (Mikan, Russell, Jabbar, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan). Jordan and Shaq needed a number of years to break through, but everyone else won a title within their first two seasons.

The reason I don't think the Bulls would have done as well in the 80's is that they depended a great deal on the fact that both Jordan and Pippin could always win their match ups. Teams just couldn't run their offense when they were getting destroyed at both wing positions. Jordan would have been just as dominant in the 80's but Pippin would have to deal with Bird, Worthy and Dr. J, and would have had serious trouble with those match ups. I know Bird torched Pippin the first couple of years.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=birdla01&p2=pippesc01

Kobe was in his 4th season when he won.  Mikan was in this 3rd/4th (he only played 7 games his first season and it was the year he graduated college).

The rest of the guys you mentioned all joined teams with (or at least won titles with) teams that had at least one  veteran future HOFer on them: Russell (Cousy), Jabbar (Robertson), Magic (Jabbar), Bird (Archibald), and Duncan (Robinson). 

When you are the first HOFer on the team (like Jordan and Shaq) you have to wait to get the other HOFer on there (Pippen and Kobe). 

I'll give you Kobe needed 4 years(I went on memory and should have checked first. He did come straight from HS!) but Mikan won a title the first season he played.

The larger point was whether megastars need to be in their primes to win titles- I think the evidence is that they don't. There are a lot of players who have made the HOF. Having two on your team is nice, but that hardly guarantees a title.

[slamtheking]

Players almost never come in and win a title in their first few years in the league as a main cog of a title team (it happens Magic and Bird did it, but that is the exception not the rule).  They usually take time to develop and hit their primes, which is when the winning happens.

This is simply wrong. If you review the history of NBA championships going all the way back to the 50's, there have been a handful of players who have been dominant and account for about 75% of the titles won. The names are obvious (Mikan, Russell, Jabbar, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan). Jordan and Shaq needed a number of years to break through, but everyone else won a title within their first two seasons.

The reason I don't think the Bulls would have done as well in the 80's is that they depended a great deal on the fact that both Jordan and Pippin could always win their match ups. Teams just couldn't run their offense when they were getting destroyed at both wing positions. Jordan would have been just as dominant in the 80's but Pippin would have to deal with Bird, Worthy and Dr. J, and would have had serious trouble with those match ups. I know Bird torched Pippin the first couple of years.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=birdla01&p2=pippesc01

Kobe was in his 4th season when he won.  Mikan was in this 3rd/4th (he only played 7 games his first season and it was the year he graduated college).

The rest of the guys you mentioned all joined teams with (or at least won titles with) teams that had at least one  veteran future HOFer on them: Russell (Cousy), Jabbar (Robertson), Magic (Jabbar), Bird (Archibald), and Duncan (Robinson). 

When you are the first HOFer on the team (like Jordan and Shaq) you have to wait to get the other HOFer on there (Pippen and Kobe). 

Really?  you're using Tiny as the the HOFer for Bird?  you'd have a more compelling point if you used Cowens who played his last season in Boston when Bird was a rookie.

[Moranis]

Players almost never come in and win a title in their first few years in the league as a main cog of a title team (it happens Magic and Bird did it, but that is the exception not the rule).  They usually take time to develop and hit their primes, which is when the winning happens.

This is simply wrong. If you review the history of NBA championships going all the way back to the 50's, there have been a handful of players who have been dominant and account for about 75% of the titles won. The names are obvious (Mikan, Russell, Jabbar, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan). Jordan and Shaq needed a number of years to break through, but everyone else won a title within their first two seasons.

The reason I don't think the Bulls would have done as well in the 80's is that they depended a great deal on the fact that both Jordan and Pippin could always win their match ups. Teams just couldn't run their offense when they were getting destroyed at both wing positions. Jordan would have been just as dominant in the 80's but Pippin would have to deal with Bird, Worthy and Dr. J, and would have had serious trouble with those match ups. I know Bird torched Pippin the first couple of years.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=birdla01&p2=pippesc01

Kobe was in his 4th season when he won.  Mikan was in this 3rd/4th (he only played 7 games his first season and it was the year he graduated college).

The rest of the guys you mentioned all joined teams with (or at least won titles with) teams that had at least one  veteran future HOFer on them: Russell (Cousy), Jabbar (Robertson), Magic (Jabbar), Bird (Archibald), and Duncan (Robinson). 

When you are the first HOFer on the team (like Jordan and Shaq) you have to wait to get the other HOFer on there (Pippen and Kobe). 

Really?  you're using Tiny as the the HOFer for Bird?  you'd have a more compelling point if you used Cowens who played his last season in Boston when Bird was a rookie.

Bird and Cowens didn't win a title together.  Bird and Tiny did (McHale also joined the team that year).

[Moranis]

Players almost never come in and win a title in their first few years in the league as a main cog of a title team (it happens Magic and Bird did it, but that is the exception not the rule).  They usually take time to develop and hit their primes, which is when the winning happens.

This is simply wrong. If you review the history of NBA championships going all the way back to the 50's, there have been a handful of players who have been dominant and account for about 75% of the titles won. The names are obvious (Mikan, Russell, Jabbar, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan). Jordan and Shaq needed a number of years to break through, but everyone else won a title within their first two seasons.

The reason I don't think the Bulls would have done as well in the 80's is that they depended a great deal on the fact that both Jordan and Pippin could always win their match ups. Teams just couldn't run their offense when they were getting destroyed at both wing positions. Jordan would have been just as dominant in the 80's but Pippin would have to deal with Bird, Worthy and Dr. J, and would have had serious trouble with those match ups. I know Bird torched Pippin the first couple of years.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=birdla01&p2=pippesc01

Kobe was in his 4th season when he won.  Mikan was in this 3rd/4th (he only played 7 games his first season and it was the year he graduated college).

The rest of the guys you mentioned all joined teams with (or at least won titles with) teams that had at least one  veteran future HOFer on them: Russell (Cousy), Jabbar (Robertson), Magic (Jabbar), Bird (Archibald), and Duncan (Robinson).  

When you are the first HOFer on the team (like Jordan and Shaq) you have to wait to get the other HOFer on there (Pippen and Kobe).  

I'll give you Kobe needed 4 years(I went on memory and should have checked first. He did come straight from HS!) but Mikan won a title the first season he played.

The larger point was whether megastars need to be in their primes to win titles- I think the evidence is that they don't. There are a lot of players who have made the HOF. Having two on your team is nice, but that hardly guarantees a title.

Mikan won a title in the first BAA/NBA season, but that was not Mikan's first professional season, it was his 3rd or 4th if you want to count the 7 games he played in 45-46.  

Sure you don't need 2 HOFers to win a title, but the vast majority of title teams do in fact have 2 HOFers on them (quite a few have 3 or more).  I mean seriously go all the way back to 1979-80 and there is only 1 team where you know for sure it isn't going to get 2 in (the first Rockets).  I would be surprised if the most recent Pistons team gets 2 in, but stranger things have happened with the HOF.  The Spurs last 2 are debatable (though Parker and Manu certainly have shots at getting in it) and in the Lakers last 2, Pau isn't given as a HOFer, but I ultimately think he gets in.  

So yeah, having 2 HOFers isn't required, but it certainly helps a great deal.  

[td450]

This is all a roundabout way to get to the point, which is that in the history of the NBA, some players are so good they can lift a team to a title almost immediately. Several all-time greats have done it. Jordan did not.

A lot of people, me included, think the 80's were the most competitive years in the league's history. No one will ever know how well Jordan's great teams could have done in the mid 80's, but he did not break through until Bird, Magic and Kareem faded. My guess is that the Bulls would have won one or two titles if they had been around in the 80's. I just don't see how Pippin and Grant/Rodman do so well in the 80's.

Jordan never beat a team lead by a top 10 all-time player, unless you count early Shaq, which I would not. Russell had to play against Chamberlain, West, Robertson, Baylor and a large number of other HOF players, and he only lost once when healthy.

[hangupandlisten]

Love all the people saying "Ask Dave Cowens!" about how physical the game was in his era compared to Jordan's.  In a recent BS report episode he says the game is substantially more physical in TODAY'S game.  http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=7611939 skip to about the 40 minute mark.  He even comments on the Russell-Wilt matchup!

With hand-checking and flagrant foul rules that have been put in place, I believe the game today is less physical than late 80's-early 90's.  Please watch an early 90's Bulls-Knicks game and tell me that Jordan got off easy compared to stars of different eras.

In addition to the physicality point, Cowens also talks about how much more emphasis there is on defense in today's game (33 minute-ish mark).  So please, spare me with some of these arguments.

[slamtheking]

Players almost never come in and win a title in their first few years in the league as a main cog of a title team (it happens Magic and Bird did it, but that is the exception not the rule).  They usually take time to develop and hit their primes, which is when the winning happens.

This is simply wrong. If you review the history of NBA championships going all the way back to the 50's, there have been a handful of players who have been dominant and account for about 75% of the titles won. The names are obvious (Mikan, Russell, Jabbar, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan). Jordan and Shaq needed a number of years to break through, but everyone else won a title within their first two seasons.

The reason I don't think the Bulls would have done as well in the 80's is that they depended a great deal on the fact that both Jordan and Pippin could always win their match ups. Teams just couldn't run their offense when they were getting destroyed at both wing positions. Jordan would have been just as dominant in the 80's but Pippin would have to deal with Bird, Worthy and Dr. J, and would have had serious trouble with those match ups. I know Bird torched Pippin the first couple of years.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=birdla01&p2=pippesc01

Kobe was in his 4th season when he won.  Mikan was in this 3rd/4th (he only played 7 games his first season and it was the year he graduated college).

The rest of the guys you mentioned all joined teams with (or at least won titles with) teams that had at least one  veteran future HOFer on them: Russell (Cousy), Jabbar (Robertson), Magic (Jabbar), Bird (Archibald), and Duncan (Robinson). 

When you are the first HOFer on the team (like Jordan and Shaq) you have to wait to get the other HOFer on there (Pippen and Kobe). 

Really?  you're using Tiny as the the HOFer for Bird?  you'd have a more compelling point if you used Cowens who played his last season in Boston when Bird was a rookie.

Bird and Cowens didn't win a title together.  Bird and Tiny did (McHale also joined the team that year).

I thought your point was that they were mentored with a HOFer.  if it's winning the title, then you're correct.  although, using Tiny as your HOFer is a stretch for making your point.  Tiny was well past his prime by then and Bird didn't exactly need mentoring to know how to win.

[Moranis]

This is all a roundabout way to get to the point, which is that in the history of the NBA, some players are so good they can lift a team to a title almost immediately. Several all-time greats have done it. Jordan did not.

All of those other all time greats won their titles with other HOFers.  Jordan did as well, he just didn't have that HOFer on his team immediately like all of the other all time greats.  Teams win titles.  If your teammates aren't any good you aren't going to win a title no matter how good you are.