Is Bill Russell winning MVP in 1961 fugazi?

Ethnic Vagina Finder

The Great Paper Chaser
Bushed
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
55,563
Reputation
3,070
Daps
157,129
Reppin
North Jersey but I miss Cali :sadcam:
Wilt came in 2nd place. He averaged 50.4 - 25.7 - 2.4
Oscar Robinson came in 3rd place and averaged a triple double 30 - 12 - 11
Jerry West came in 4 place averaging 30 - 7 - 5
Elgin Baylor averaged 38 - 18 - 4 and came in 5th place

Walt Bellamy averaged 31 - 19 - 2 and only came in 7th

Bill Russell averaged 18 - 23 - 4

Stats clearly didn't matter back then. And there were only 9 teams playing an 80 game season, so every team had to have played each other at least 6 times.
 

UpAndComing

Veteran
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
70,288
Reputation
17,556
Daps
301,154
Criteria for the MVP literally changes every year, and that includes the 1960s

Bill Russell in 1961 already won 3 titles, on his way to win a 4th title. Gotta look at the press clippings at that time, but I'm sure the narrative was that he was the best player on the Best team

Stats did matter in other years when Oscar and Wilt won their MVPs
 

2legit

Superstar
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
2,665
Reputation
809
Daps
17,107
Criteria for the MVP literally changes every year, and that includes the 1960s

Bill Russell in 1961 already won 3 titles, on his way to win a 4th title. Gotta look at the press clippings at that time, but I'm sure the narrative was that he was the best player on the Best team

Stats did matter in other years when Oscar and Wilt won their MVPs
Press didnt matter back. The players voted for MVP in that era. Russells peers said that he was better than Wilt.
 

SchoolboyC

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Feb 27, 2014
Messages
24,493
Reputation
4,410
Daps
103,854
My understanding is Wilt was a very polarizing player during his playing career especially the Philly days before he won a ring. Some people acknowledged his talent but felt he was a statpadder and cared more about his numbers/celebrity status than winning games whereas Russell was seen as the ultimate leader and team player
 

Ethnic Vagina Finder

The Great Paper Chaser
Bushed
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
55,563
Reputation
3,070
Daps
157,129
Reppin
North Jersey but I miss Cali :sadcam:
My understanding is Wilt was a very polarizing player during his playing career especially the Philly days before he won a ring. Some people acknowledged his talent but felt he was a statpadder and cared more about his numbers/celebrity status than winning games whereas Russell was seen as the ultimate leader and team player
Stat padding in a league with only 9 teams :mjlol:

If you read the stats of the top 7 MVP finish, everyone was padding stats. Wilt was just better than everyone else at doing it.

All I’m saying is the MVP was obviously more about team accomplishments than individual merit.

The Celtics had the best record and gave up the fewest points. They didn’t have defensive player of the year so Russelll got the MVP by default despite not scoring a lot
 

Bittersteel

Rookie
Joined
May 24, 2022
Messages
70
Reputation
-138
Daps
196
In the 60s defense was more impactful than offense. That's why the Celtics could win 8 championship in a row whilst being a bad offense and whilst the Royals were always one of the best offensive teams but couldn't sniff the championship.

Bill being dominant on the defensive end was far more valuable to his team than the offensive players.
 

Harry B

Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2012
Messages
32,727
Reputation
-897
Daps
66,129
What about likability? What about being the most important player on the by far best team?
 

UpAndComing

Veteran
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
70,288
Reputation
17,556
Daps
301,154
In the 60s defense was more impactful than offense. That's why the Celtics could win 8 championship in a row whilst being a bad offense and whilst the Royals were always one of the best offensive teams but couldn't sniff the championship.

Bill being dominant on the defensive end was far more valuable to his team than the offensive players.


Holy shyt at the ignorance

The Celtics had one of the best offenses in the league in the 1960s. The Celtics/Auerbach Literally created the fastbreak offense

The 60s Celtics had great offensive players on that team. Cousy, Bill Sharman, Sam Jones, John Havlichek, and Tom Heinsohn
 

Boonapalist

Superstar
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
5,867
Reputation
1,561
Daps
26,537
Reppin
Lakers
Holy shyt at the ignorance

The Celtics had one of the best offenses in the league in the 1960s. The Celtics/Auerbach Literally created the fastbreak offense

The 60s Celtics had great offensive players on that team. Cousy, Bill Sharman, Sam Jones, John Havlichek, and Tom Heinsohn
Your calling someone ignorant but once again you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Look at the Celtics offensive ratings those years. They were usually near the bottom. Just because a team plays fast doesn’t mean their offense is good. Their defense is why they were so dominant and why Bill Russell deserves more respect.

Before Bill Russell came the Celtics were usually 1st or 2nd on offense but last on defense and you see how much they won. Russell was a pioneer and a winner.
 

UpAndComing

Veteran
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
70,288
Reputation
17,556
Daps
301,154
Your calling someone ignorant but once again you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Look at the Celtics offensive ratings those years. They were usually near the bottom. Just because a team plays fast doesn’t mean their offense is good. Their defense is why they were so dominant and why Bill Russell deserves more respect.

Before Bill Russell came the Celtics were usually 1st or 2nd on offense but last on defense and you see how much they won. Russell was a pioneer and a winner.


The person I quoted said they were a BAD, which they were not. At worst they were average, with majority of the years being 4th or 5th in offensive efficiency. Being the literal inventors of the Fast Break automatically does not make you a bad offensive team.... I'm really intrigued if anyone has the Celtics 4th quarter offensive stats, relative to the rest of the league, they had very good offensive sets that were ahead of their time. Seeing as the Celtics in the Russell era never lost a Game 7 in the playoffs
 

Ripp

Superstar
Joined
Jul 27, 2012
Messages
18,544
Reputation
1,535
Daps
38,248
Reppin
Queens
Wilt came in 2nd place. He averaged 50.4 - 25.7 - 2.4
Oscar Robinson came in 3rd place and averaged a triple double 30 - 12 - 11
Jerry West came in 4 place averaging 30 - 7 - 5
Elgin Baylor averaged 38 - 18 - 4 and came in 5th place

Walt Bellamy averaged 31 - 19 - 2 and only came in 7th

Bill Russell averaged 18 - 23 - 4

Stats clearly didn't matter back then. And there were only 9 teams playing an 80 game season, so every team had to have played each other at least 6 times.

Well the celtics were 60-20 I'm not gonna do the match but is it possible he Russel and the celtics had a winning record over the other teams those candidates played for. If that's the case it's lowkey empty stats
 

Baka's Weird Case

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Jul 25, 2015
Messages
16,614
Reputation
7,966
Daps
81,752
Reppin
Goon Squad - Catset
Well the celtics were 60-20 I'm not gonna do the match but is it possible he Russel and the celtics had a winning record over the other teams those candidates played for. If that's the case it's lowkey empty stats
the celtics had winning records against every team in the league that year lol
 
Top