Bill Russell has 11 Championships as "the man"

[Street Knowledge]

But when you bring this up Jordan Stans either go silent or cop pleas

"But the era though"
"His teammates though"
"He wasn't their leading scorer"
"He didn't win finals MVP" Like it existed back then

But I never hear this "context" being used in debates with someone like Kareem for example. I can't tell you how many times I've heard an MJ Stan say "Jordan>>>>Kareem because he has more rings as "the man", dudes will say things like 6>>>2. When ignoring things like

1.) Kareem during his peak Prime(mid to late 70's) never had the talent and coaching that Mike had during his. For example Kareem's teams were horrible when he went down while the bulls remained top 5 when Jordan retired. He got Past his prime Oscar and Magic when he was 32. It would be like Jordan finally getting Scottie or an equivalent to him in 1996, how would his legacy be?
2.) Kareem was the best player on the lakers early championships, easily the first 2 and arguable in 85'. It's just that since magic won the finals MVP's(and he didn't deserve the first one) his didnt count as much as Jordan's. Plus he could've had more, if magic doesn't choke in the 84' finals that's another ring for Kareem(and finals mvp for sure)

Jordan has a argument over Kareem just like he does over every player as the greatest. Titles as the man is just a dumb one to use as a centerpiece of an argument

 

[BlackFeet]

If we're being objective, Bill Russell is DEFINITELY the GOAT, there's no debate to be had. Lets clear some things about Russell's lack of offensive skills.
Russell was an amazing rebounder averaging 22 rpg (16+ rpg when adjusted to today's pace and still higher than Rodman's average, for those advanced stat nerds). He was a good ball handler

for a big man, since he often runs the ball after rebounding to get a clear pass down court and start the fast break, and of course a great defender. He was also a great passer; he consistently

ranked in the top 10 in assists and that is beyond what you would expect from a center. Not most guards could do that. His scoring was solid at 15ppg on 13 FGA's. Not exactly mind blowing

numbers but then everyone on the 60's Celtics didn't have a mind blowing PPG. Boston had a structured offense where all 5 guys on the floor would have the opportunity to score. The leading

scorer on the Celtics only averaged 22 points and there were 5-6 other guys scoring in double-digits. Bill or anyone else on the Celtics didn't need not to fully exert themselves on offense since

the scoring was distributed. Russell had the same shooting percentage as the top two scorers (Jones and Havlicek) on the team. Understand that Red wanted Russell to stay focused more on

his rebounding and outlet passing instead of his shooting. Also back in college, when his coach wasn't pigeonholing him on a defensive and rebounding role, Bill was scoring 20ppg on 52 FG%.
Conclusion: The Reason for Russell's low PPG in the NBA was Russell was given very few opportunities to score (13 FGA)


And I've done some research to determine whether Russell's Celtics had an easier road to their titles in the playoffs than MJ's Bulls based upon the fact that there were fewer teams and a shorter post season and this is what I unconvered. Again, this is looking squarely at the championship seasons.

# of Championships
Russell's Celtics-11
Jordan's Bulls-6

Total Series Played
Russell's Celtics-25
Jordan's Bulls-24

Avg. series played per title
Russell's Celtics-2.3
Jordan's Bulls-4

Avg. games played per title
Russell's Celtics-13.4
Jordan's Bulls-19.3

If we were to stop right here it would appear that the Bulls definitely had a tougher road to the championship each year. They played nearly the same amount of series en route to 6 titles as the Celtics played en route to 11 titles. They also averaged more series and games played per title run. At this point the 6 titles do look to be at least as impressive as 11. But let’s dig deeper. Let’s see actually how challenging the series were.

In the 25 series that they played on their way to 11 titles, Russell’s Celtics were pushed to a game seven 10 times. They were also pushed to a game five in a best of five series once. This means that the Celtics were pushed to the brink of elimination in 44% of their playoff series. 5 of those game sevens were decided by 2 points or 1 point.

I want to put this in perspective. The Celtics were a total of 10-12 points away from losing 5 of their titles. (Just FYI, another game 7 was decided by 5 points, another by 4 points, and another by 3 points.) So we have a dynastic team that is on the verge of being eliminated in almost half of its series. That level of competition and struggle can't be ignored or minimized.

In the 24 series that they played on their way to 6 titles, Jordan’s Bulls were pushed to a game seven (or elimination game) a grand total of 2 times. This means that the Bulls were pushed to the brink of elimination in only 8.3% of their series. One of those game sevens was a 110-81 or 29 pt. blowout. The other game seven was at least more competitive. It was an 88-83 win. Not much suspense here.

Let’s look at the other end of the spectrum. In those same 25 series Russell’s Celtics swept their opponents only twice. That is 8% of their series. On the other hand, Jordan’s Bulls swept their opponents 9 times, including every single first round. 37.5% of their series were against teams that were not competitive enough to even win one game. Adding those extra rounds and games sure doesn’t seem to add to the difficulty of the road to a title especially when those teams aren’t putting up that much resistance.

Next, as mentioned earlier, Russell’s Celtics averaged only 13.4 games per title run, while Jordan’s Bulls averaged 19.3 games per title run. The Celtics’ competition caused them to average 4.45 losses per title run. The Bull’s competition caused them to average 4.33 losses per title run. So despite playing nearly 6 games fewer, Russell’s Celtics still loss, on average, slightly more games showing their competition was at least as, if not, more challenging than the Bulls. They were not just breezing their way to titles at all. The fewest number of games the Celtics lost in any championship post season was 2. The fewest number of losses the Bulls had in any championship postseason was 2 despite playing more games. The most losses the Celtics had in any post season that they won the title were 7. The most losses the Bulls had in any post season that they won the title were 7 again, despite playing more games.

Russell’s Celtics won 5 of their 25 series on the road as underdogs in their title years. Jordan’s Bulls won 3 of their 24 series on the road as underdogs in their title years.

So let’s summarize this. Yes Russell’s Celtics played in a league with significantly fewer teams and a shorter post season than Jordan’s Bulls. But while the Bulls were so much better than their competition that they swept 37.5% of their opponents in what amounted to meaningless, noncompetitive series, the Celtics were being forced to an elimination game in 44% of their series. The Bulls did play more game sixes (7 to 5 in favor of the Bulls). Adding the game sixes to the equation tells us that 37.5% of the Bulls’ series en route to their titles were competitive enough to go at least 6 games. But again that pales in comparison to the competitive and challenging nature of the Celtics' playoff runs. 60% of all of the Celtics’ series went at least 6 games, and this doesn’t even include a 5 game best of five series.

In conclusion, I’m sorry. With these numbers no one can convince me that it was easier to win titles in Russell’s era than in the modern era. Try telling a team that is about 8 or 9 combined plays from losing 5 of their titles that their titles mean less than a team that was barely pushed to an elimination during their title runs. Those titles were hard earned. Their road to titles were not any easier than the Bulls, and the Bulls' titles are not worth any more IMO. Contrary to popularly regurgitated rhetoric, adding more teams does not make the path to a championship more difficult if you are so superior to those additional teams that they are getting swept. That's just padding the win column. I can't view playing 8 games against this season's Cavs as being more difficult than playing 5 games against this season's Heat just because it's more games. It's not the quantity of the competition. It’s the quality of the competition that makes the road difficult. 6 is neither greater than nor equal to 11.

 

[Ronnie Lott]

But when you bring this up Jordan Stans either go silent or cop pleas

"But the era though"
"His teammates though"
"He wasn't their leading scorer"
"He didn't win finals MVP" Like it existed back then

But I never hear this "context" being used in debates with someone like Kareem for example. I can't tell you how many times I've heard an MJ Stan say "Jordan>>>>Kareem because he has more rings as "the man", dudes will say things like 6>>>2. When ignoring things like

1.) Kareem during his peak Prime(mid to late 70's) never had the talent and coaching that Mike had during his. For example Kareem's teams were horrible when he went down while the bulls remained top 5 when Jordan retired. He got Past his prime Oscar and Magic when he was 32. It would be like Jordan finally getting Scottie or an equivalent to him in 1996, how would his legacy be?
2.) Kareem was the best player on the lakers early championships, easily the first 2 and arguable in 85'. It's just that since magic won the finals MVP's(and he didn't deserve the first one) his didnt count as much as Jordan's. Plus he could've had more, if magic doesn't choke in the 84' finals that's another ring for Kareem(and finals mvp for sure)

Jordan has a argument over Kareem just like he does over every player as the greatest. Titles as the man is just a dumb one to use as a centerpiece of an argument

Pretty much this

And honorable mention should have Big Shot Bob on there (I'm not sayin he was the man , but he made a lot of big clutch shots and he has 6 rings)

 

[BlackFeet]

As far as William's competition regarding him playing no more than 9 teams:

What about the 66-67 Lakers?

Archie Clark, who averaged 10.5 ppg, and would be a 20 ppg scorer the very next season.

Gail Goodrich, who averaged 12.4 ppg, and would go on to have a HOF career.

Walt Hazzard, who averaged 9.3 ppg, and who would average 24.0 ppg the very next year.

That's THREE solid guards.


Then there was PF Rudy LaRusso, who averaged 12.8 ppg (yes, in only 45 games), and who would average 22 ppg the very next season in a full season.


At center they had journeyman Darrall Imhoff, who averaged 11 ppg and 13 rpg.

Oh, and they also had TWO seven-footers, Henry Finkel, and Mel Counts. Counts was versatile enough that he could play both center and PF.


That's a pretty solid roster right there, and it doesn't include role players like Tom Hawkins, who was a good defensive player, or Jim "Bad News" Barnes, who was a rugged PF throughout the 60's.


Oh wait...

I forgot about Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, who played most of the schedule. West was in his prime, and put up a 29 ppg season (with 6 rpg, and 7 apg.) And Baylor was near his prime, and hung a 27 ppg, 13 rpg season. The two would have been considered the "Lebron and Wade" of their era.


Surely this team won 60 games right, especially in the "weak" 60's, right?


Well, not quite. They went 36-45. Can you imagine the Heat with Lebron, Wade, and Ray Allen, going 36-45?


Then take a look at the other teams in the league. The Knicks had a loaded roster that included Willis Reed and Walt Bellamy, as well as dikk Van Arsdale, dikk Barnett, and Cazzie Russell. This team only went 36-45.

Or the stacked Royals roster, which had near prime seasons from Oscar and Jerry Lucas, as well as players like Odie Smith, Jon McGlocklin, Flynn Robinson, Happy Hairston, Connie Dierking, and a young Butter Bean Love. Record= 39-42.

And how about the St. Louis Hawks? Just look up these players, and their careers: Lou Hudson, Richie Guerin, Bill Bridges, Zelmo Beaty, Joe Caldwell, Paul Silas, and Lenny Wilkins. And, ... 39-42.

The Warriors? They had a peak Rick Barry (35.6 ppg), and a peak Nate Thurmond (2nd in the MVP balloting), with his 19 ppg and 21 rpg. As well as Jeff Mullins (13 ppg), 6-10 Clyde Lee (7.4 rpg in 17 mpg), paul Neumann (14 ppg), Tom Meschery (11 ppg), and Al Attles. This team was so loaded that they went 44-37, and made it to the Finals.


Oh, and Russell's 60-21 Celtics, with a HOF-laden roster that could go 10 players deep, went 60-21, and didn't even make it to the Finals.


But, yes, that was a "weak" league.

And does anyone really believe that Shaq's "three-peat" teams would have a prayer in TODAY's NBA? Or MJ's 90's Bulls teams even making it to the playoffs in TODAY's NBA? Or Magic's 80's Lakers even having a winning record in TODAY's NBA?

The game is so much more advanced today than "back in the day."

Hell, a prime Shaq, a prime MJ, and a prime Magic would be lucky to make a team today.

Most of the players playing today wouldn't even sniff a 60s reserve spot,
There just weren't many open spots and there weren't exactly 10 teams to Beat up on like there are now (Kings, Suns, Pelicans, Bobcats, Timberwolves, Magic, Cle vs., Det now Bos, GS now LAL, Wizards)

And I would say having to only win 2 or 3 games could cause upsets, one minor injury, one bad game and you're on the ropes facing elimination, a chance for an upset was higher and the mistakes were more costly and then with only having 2 to 3 rounds an underdog could have a hot streak easier and one or tow bad games, one mishap, untimely injury you get a 2011 Dal Mavs, or 8th seed Knicks making it to Finals or an unexpected 07 cavs, AI's 76ers

They played as many as 22 exhibition games sometimes back then usually about 15, far far more than today - which means they played at least as many games as modern teams play. Definitely not less wear and tear. Definitely not less contact. Jerry West broke his nose 9 times, Bob Pettit had 2 broken hands and 150 stitches in his face throughout his career. How were these types of injuries being inflicted with 'less contact'? How many stitches has Lebron had on his face during his career? Or is his skin simply too tough to be cut?


'About 110-115 games a season' - that's not less wear and tear.


Teams traveled by car or bus then and then coach.
They played back to back to backs. They played 4 games in 5 days. There wasn't as advanced medical technology and care for the players as there is now.

Fouls were harder, hits were stronger, injuries were just another part of the game rather than now where you're prohibited from playing or rested for months. Concussions happened and people played through them.

Sure there were only 8 teams and then 12 but the travel was worse, the game schedule was worse, the contact was harder.

Nowadays teams fly in their own private jet, have trainers and medical personnel 24/7,there are no triple header back to back to backs no 4 games in 5 days, the rules are softer and contact is easier. The money and care for athletes is better, the hardwood and arenas are better taken care of. Chamberlain's famous '62 game log even shows them playing 5 games in 5 nights, in 4 different cities

 

[Raquinotj]

As far as William's competition regarding him playing no more than 9 teams:

What about the 66-67 Lakers?

Archie Clark, who averaged 10.5 ppg, and would be a 20 ppg scorer the very next season.

Gail Goodrich, who averaged 12.4 ppg, and would go on to have a HOF career.

Walt Hazzard, who averaged 9.3 ppg, and who would average 24.0 ppg the very next year.

That's THREE solid guards.


Then there was PF Rudy LaRusso, who averaged 12.8 ppg (yes, in only 45 games), and who would average 22 ppg the very next season in a full season.


At center they had journeyman Darrall Imhoff, who averaged 11 ppg and 13 rpg.

Oh, and they also had TWO seven-footers, Henry Finkel, and Mel Counts. Counts was versatile enough that he could play both center and PF.


That's a pretty solid roster right there, and it doesn't include role players like Tom Hawkins, who was a good defensive player, or Jim "Bad News" Barnes, who was a rugged PF throughout the 60's.


Oh wait...

I forgot about Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, who played most of the schedule. West was in his prime, and put up a 29 ppg season (with 6 rpg, and 7 apg.) And Baylor was near his prime, and hung a 27 ppg, 13 rpg season. The two would have been considered the "Lebron and Wade" of their era.


Surely this team won 60 games right, especially in the "weak" 60's, right?


Well, not quite. They went 36-45. Can you imagine the Heat with Lebron, Wade, and Ray Allen, going 36-45?


Then take a look at the other teams in the league. The Knicks had a loaded roster that included Willis Reed and Walt Bellamy, as well as dikk Van Arsdale, dikk Barnett, and Cazzie Russell. This team only went 36-45.

Or the stacked Royals roster, which had near prime seasons from Oscar and Jerry Lucas, as well as players like Odie Smith, Jon McGlocklin, Flynn Robinson, Happy Hairston, Connie Dierking, and a young Butter Bean Love. Record= 39-42.

And how about the St. Louis Hawks? Just look up these players, and their careers: Lou Hudson, Richie Guerin, Bill Bridges, Zelmo Beaty, Joe Caldwell, Paul Silas, and Lenny Wilkins. And, ... 39-42.

The Warriors? They had a peak Rick Barry (35.6 ppg), and a peak Nate Thurmond (2nd in the MVP balloting), with his 19 ppg and 21 rpg. As well as Jeff Mullins (13 ppg), 6-10 Clyde Lee (7.4 rpg in 17 mpg), paul Neumann (14 ppg), Tom Meschery (11 ppg), and Al Attles. This team was so loaded that they went 44-37, and made it to the Finals.


Oh, and Russell's 60-21 Celtics, with a HOF-laden roster that could go 10 players deep, went 60-21, and didn't even make it to the Finals.


But, yes, that was a "weak" league.

And does anyone really believe that Shaq's "three-peat" teams would have a prayer in TODAY's NBA? Or MJ's 90's Bulls teams even making it to the playoffs in TODAY's NBA? Or Magic's 80's Lakers even having a winning record in TODAY's NBA?

The game is so much more advanced today than "back in the day."

Hell, a prime Shaq, a prime MJ, and a prime Magic would be lucky to make a team today.

Most of the players playing today wouldn't even sniff a 60s reserve spot,
There just weren't many open spots and there weren't exactly 10 teams to Beat up on like there are now (Kings, Suns, Pelicans, Bobcats, Timberwolves, Magic, Cle vs., Det now Bos, GS now LAL, Wizards)

And I would say having to only win 2 or 3 games could cause upsets, one minor injury, one bad game and you're on the ropes facing elimination, a chance for an upset was higher and the mistakes were more costly and then with only having 2 to 3 rounds an underdog could have a hot streak easier and one or tow bad games, one mishap, untimely injury you get a 2011 Dal Mavs, or 8th seed Knicks making it to Finals or an unexpected 07 cavs, AI's 76ers

They played as many as 22 exhibition games sometimes back then usually about 15, far far more than today - which means they played at least as many games as modern teams play. Definitely not less wear and tear. Definitely not less contact. Jerry West broke his nose 9 times, Bob Pettit had 2 broken hands and 150 stitches in his face throughout his career. How were these types of injuries being inflicted with 'less contact'? How many stitches has Lebron had on his face during his career? Or is his skin simply too tough to be cut?


'About 110-115 games a season' - that's not less wear and tear.


Teams traveled by car or bus then and then coach.
They played back to back to backs. They played 4 games in 5 days. There wasn't as advanced medical technology and care for the players as there is now.

Fouls were harder, hits were stronger, injuries were just another part of the game rather than now where you're prohibited from playing or rested for months. Concussions happened and people played through them.

Sure there were only 8 teams and then 12 but the travel was worse, the game schedule was worse, the contact was harder.

Nowadays teams fly in their own private jet, have trainers and medical personnel 24/7,there are no triple header back to back to backs no 4 games in 5 days, the rules are softer and contact is easier. The money and care for athletes is better, the hardwood and arenas are better taken care of. Chamberlain's famous '62 game log even shows them playing 5 games in 5 nights, in 4 different cities

Is that you Bill Simmons? I hope ya ain't write all this breh. Long ass read but good.

 

[Th3G3ntleman]

Meh playin against 5'6 cacs ain't shyt . I'd drop 30 a night

 

[#1 pick]

Meh playin against 5'6 cacs ain't shyt . I'd drop 30 a night

Craig Ehlo and Randy Wittman ain't shyt either.

 

[O.G.B]

As far as William's competition regarding him playing no more than 9 teams:

What about the 66-67 Lakers?

Archie Clark, who averaged 10.5 ppg, and would be a 20 ppg scorer the very next season.

Gail Goodrich, who averaged 12.4 ppg, and would go on to have a HOF career.

Walt Hazzard, who averaged 9.3 ppg, and who would average 24.0 ppg the very next year.

That's THREE solid guards.


Then there was PF Rudy LaRusso, who averaged 12.8 ppg (yes, in only 45 games), and who would average 22 ppg the very next season in a full season.


At center they had journeyman Darrall Imhoff, who averaged 11 ppg and 13 rpg.

Oh, and they also had TWO seven-footers, Henry Finkel, and Mel Counts. Counts was versatile enough that he could play both center and PF.


That's a pretty solid roster right there, and it doesn't include role players like Tom Hawkins, who was a good defensive player, or Jim "Bad News" Barnes, who was a rugged PF throughout the 60's.


Oh wait...

I forgot about Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, who played most of the schedule. West was in his prime, and put up a 29 ppg season (with 6 rpg, and 7 apg.) And Baylor was near his prime, and hung a 27 ppg, 13 rpg season. The two would have been considered the "Lebron and Wade" of their era.


Surely this team won 60 games right, especially in the "weak" 60's, right?


Well, not quite. They went 36-45. Can you imagine the Heat with Lebron, Wade, and Ray Allen, going 36-45?


Then take a look at the other teams in the league. The Knicks had a loaded roster that included Willis Reed and Walt Bellamy, as well as dikk Van Arsdale, dikk Barnett, and Cazzie Russell. This team only went 36-45.

Or the stacked Royals roster, which had near prime seasons from Oscar and Jerry Lucas, as well as players like Odie Smith, Jon McGlocklin, Flynn Robinson, Happy Hairston, Connie Dierking, and a young Butter Bean Love. Record= 39-42.

And how about the St. Louis Hawks? Just look up these players, and their careers: Lou Hudson, Richie Guerin, Bill Bridges, Zelmo Beaty, Joe Caldwell, Paul Silas, and Lenny Wilkins. And, ... 39-42.

The Warriors? They had a peak Rick Barry (35.6 ppg), and a peak Nate Thurmond (2nd in the MVP balloting), with his 19 ppg and 21 rpg. As well as Jeff Mullins (13 ppg), 6-10 Clyde Lee (7.4 rpg in 17 mpg), paul Neumann (14 ppg), Tom Meschery (11 ppg), and Al Attles. This team was so loaded that they went 44-37, and made it to the Finals.


Oh, and Russell's 60-21 Celtics, with a HOF-laden roster that could go 10 players deep, went 60-21, and didn't even make it to the Finals.


But, yes, that was a "weak" league.

And does anyone really believe that Shaq's "three-peat" teams would have a prayer in TODAY's NBA? Or MJ's 90's Bulls teams even making it to the playoffs in TODAY's NBA? Or Magic's 80's Lakers even having a winning record in TODAY's NBA?

The game is so much more advanced today than "back in the day."

Hell, a prime Shaq, a prime MJ, and a prime Magic would be lucky to make a team today.

Most of the players playing today wouldn't even sniff a 60s reserve spot,
There just weren't many open spots and there weren't exactly 10 teams to Beat up on like there are now (Kings, Suns, Pelicans, Bobcats, Timberwolves, Magic, Cle vs., Det now Bos, GS now LAL, Wizards)

And I would say having to only win 2 or 3 games could cause upsets, one minor injury, one bad game and you're on the ropes facing elimination, a chance for an upset was higher and the mistakes were more costly and then with only having 2 to 3 rounds an underdog could have a hot streak easier and one or tow bad games, one mishap, untimely injury you get a 2011 Dal Mavs, or 8th seed Knicks making it to Finals or an unexpected 07 cavs, AI's 76ers

They played as many as 22 exhibition games sometimes back then usually about 15, far far more than today - which means they played at least as many games as modern teams play. Definitely not less wear and tear. Definitely not less contact. Jerry West broke his nose 9 times, Bob Pettit had 2 broken hands and 150 stitches in his face throughout his career. How were these types of injuries being inflicted with 'less contact'? How many stitches has Lebron had on his face during his career? Or is his skin simply too tough to be cut?


'About 110-115 games a season' - that's not less wear and tear.


Teams traveled by car or bus then and then coach.
They played back to back to backs. They played 4 games in 5 days. There wasn't as advanced medical technology and care for the players as there is now.

Fouls were harder, hits were stronger, injuries were just another part of the game rather than now where you're prohibited from playing or rested for months. Concussions happened and people played through them.

Sure there were only 8 teams and then 12 but the travel was worse, the game schedule was worse, the contact was harder.

Nowadays teams fly in their own private jet, have trainers and medical personnel 24/7,there are no triple header back to back to backs no 4 games in 5 days, the rules are softer and contact is easier. The money and care for athletes is better, the hardwood and arenas are better taken care of. Chamberlain's famous '62 game log even shows them playing 5 games in 5 nights, in 4 different cities

Brilliant in-depth dissection!

 

[SwagKingKong]

Anyone who would base their arguments off the amount of rings a player have is just stupid in the first place.

With that said, Bills 11 championships aren't more impressive than Jordans 6. Russell played in a league where there were between 8 and 14 teams. Think about that for a second.

 

[Jplaya2023]

If we're being objective, Bill Russell is DEFINITELY the GOAT, there's no debate to be had. Lets clear some things about Russell's lack of offensive skills.
Russell was an amazing rebounder averaging 22 rpg (16+ rpg when adjusted to today's pace and still higher than Rodman's average, for those advanced stat nerds). He was a good ball handler

for a big man, since he often runs the ball after rebounding to get a clear pass down court and start the fast break, and of course a great defender. He was also a great passer; he consistently

ranked in the top 10 in assists and that is beyond what you would expect from a center. Not most guards could do that. His scoring was solid at 15ppg on 13 FGA's. Not exactly mind blowing

numbers but then everyone on the 60's Celtics didn't have a mind blowing PPG. Boston had a structured offense where all 5 guys on the floor would have the opportunity to score. The leading

scorer on the Celtics only averaged 22 points and there were 5-6 other guys scoring in double-digits. Bill or anyone else on the Celtics didn't need not to fully exert themselves on offense since

the scoring was distributed. Russell had the same shooting percentage as the top two scorers (Jones and Havlicek) on the team. Understand that Red wanted Russell to stay focused more on

his rebounding and outlet passing instead of his shooting. Also back in college, when his coach wasn't pigeonholing him on a defensive and rebounding role, Bill was scoring 20ppg on 52 FG%.
Conclusion: The Reason for Russell's low PPG in the NBA was Russell was given very few opportunities to score (13 FGA)


And I've done some research to determine whether Russell's Celtics had an easier road to their titles in the playoffs than MJ's Bulls based upon the fact that there were fewer teams and a shorter post season and this is what I unconvered. Again, this is looking squarely at the championship seasons.

# of Championships
Russell's Celtics-11
Jordan's Bulls-6

Total Series Played
Russell's Celtics-25
Jordan's Bulls-24

Avg. series played per title
Russell's Celtics-2.3
Jordan's Bulls-4

Avg. games played per title
Russell's Celtics-13.4
Jordan's Bulls-19.3

If we were to stop right here it would appear that the Bulls definitely had a tougher road to the championship each year. They played nearly the same amount of series en route to 6 titles as the Celtics played en route to 11 titles. They also averaged more series and games played per title run. At this point the 6 titles do look to be at least as impressive as 11. But let’s dig deeper. Let’s see actually how challenging the series were.

In the 25 series that they played on their way to 11 titles, Russell’s Celtics were pushed to a game seven 10 times. They were also pushed to a game five in a best of five series once. This means that the Celtics were pushed to the brink of elimination in 44% of their playoff series. 5 of those game sevens were decided by 2 points or 1 point.

I want to put this in perspective. The Celtics were a total of 10-12 points away from losing 5 of their titles. (Just FYI, another game 7 was decided by 5 points, another by 4 points, and another by 3 points.) So we have a dynastic team that is on the verge of being eliminated in almost half of its series. That level of competition and struggle can't be ignored or minimized.

In the 24 series that they played on their way to 6 titles, Jordan’s Bulls were pushed to a game seven (or elimination game) a grand total of 2 times. This means that the Bulls were pushed to the brink of elimination in only 8.3% of their series. One of those game sevens was a 110-81 or 29 pt. blowout. The other game seven was at least more competitive. It was an 88-83 win. Not much suspense here.

Let’s look at the other end of the spectrum. In those same 25 series Russell’s Celtics swept their opponents only twice. That is 8% of their series. On the other hand, Jordan’s Bulls swept their opponents 9 times, including every single first round. 37.5% of their series were against teams that were not competitive enough to even win one game. Adding those extra rounds and games sure doesn’t seem to add to the difficulty of the road to a title especially when those teams aren’t putting up that much resistance.

Next, as mentioned earlier, Russell’s Celtics averaged only 13.4 games per title run, while Jordan’s Bulls averaged 19.3 games per title run. The Celtics’ competition caused them to average 4.45 losses per title run. The Bull’s competition caused them to average 4.33 losses per title run. So despite playing nearly 6 games fewer, Russell’s Celtics still loss, on average, slightly more games showing their competition was at least as, if not, more challenging than the Bulls. They were not just breezing their way to titles at all. The fewest number of games the Celtics lost in any championship post season was 2. The fewest number of losses the Bulls had in any championship postseason was 2 despite playing more games. The most losses the Celtics had in any post season that they won the title were 7. The most losses the Bulls had in any post season that they won the title were 7 again, despite playing more games.

Russell’s Celtics won 5 of their 25 series on the road as underdogs in their title years. Jordan’s Bulls won 3 of their 24 series on the road as underdogs in their title years.

So let’s summarize this. Yes Russell’s Celtics played in a league with significantly fewer teams and a shorter post season than Jordan’s Bulls. But while the Bulls were so much better than their competition that they swept 37.5% of their opponents in what amounted to meaningless, noncompetitive series, the Celtics were being forced to an elimination game in 44% of their series. The Bulls did play more game sixes (7 to 5 in favor of the Bulls). Adding the game sixes to the equation tells us that 37.5% of the Bulls’ series en route to their titles were competitive enough to go at least 6 games. But again that pales in comparison to the competitive and challenging nature of the Celtics' playoff runs. 60% of all of the Celtics’ series went at least 6 games, and this doesn’t even include a 5 game best of five series.

In conclusion, I’m sorry. With these numbers no one can convince me that it was easier to win titles in Russell’s era than in the modern era. Try telling a team that is about 8 or 9 combined plays from losing 5 of their titles that their titles mean less than a team that was barely pushed to an elimination during their title runs. Those titles were hard earned. Their road to titles were not any easier than the Bulls, and the Bulls' titles are not worth any more IMO. Contrary to popularly regurgitated rhetoric, adding more teams does not make the path to a championship more difficult if you are so superior to those additional teams that they are getting swept. That's just padding the win column. I can't view playing 8 games against this season's Cavs as being more difficult than playing 5 games against this season's Heat just because it's more games. It's not the quantity of the competition. It’s the quality of the competition that makes the road difficult. 6 is neither greater than nor equal to 11.

great post

 

[BlackFeet]

Anyone who would base their arguments off the amount of rings a player have is just stupid in the first place.

With that said, Bills 11 championships aren't more impressive than Jordans 6. Russell played in a league where there were between 8 and 14 teams. Think about that for a second.

So in other words, TL;DR, LOL. If Jordan was on that Boston team, his PPG would be drastically down, as he'd have all the help he needed, and Auerbach wouldn't have allowed him to ruin the team game/chemistry by hogging the ball. Wait, matter of fact, Jordan probably wouldn't sacrifice his numbers like William did, that's part of the reason why he's not the GOAT, and never will be

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

@BlackFeet did you write that or ?

 

[L. Deezy]

Man, Bill Russell played in the white man era.. of course he was dominant. Im tired of this GOAT argument for him.

Glad he won them titles as a Black man during those times.. but lets be real

 

[TheNig]

Went 74-8 on 2k. Won MVP and championship as the man.

 

[Wacky D]

Went 74-8 on 2k. Won MVP and championship as the man.

what you played, a fantasy draft season?

Anyone who would base their arguments off the amount of rings a player have is just stupid in the first place.

With that said, Bills 11 championships aren't more impressive than Jordans 6. Russell played in a league where there were between 8 and 14 teams. Think about that for a second.

actually, that makes russell's championships look even more impressive.

less teams means the talent wasnt watered-down and spread across the map all like that, so basically everybody had a squad and you couldnt really take nights off. you'd have to bring it every night.