Why the rings argument dont work for Bill Russell

[Buckeye Fever]

Sorry, Pippen didnt win ANY rings as THE MAN

Chill

 

[Donald Trumps Twitter]

And Jordan played during an expansion era during a time where being 7ft alone was enough and skills weren't as polished and tons of players got by on being "enforcers". Now we have multiskilled players an centers who can play like centers and guards. While I believe the stars of that era would still be good today, clearly the avg player was worse.

The NBA from the 2000’s and on, is pure bliss, stars everywhere. Tall, athletic, skilled.


The best ERA hands down. We got Kobe and Lebron, Wade and Durant, Curry and Iverson.

These guys could go back to ANY time period in NBA history and dominate.

 

[Donald Trumps Twitter]

Nah don't move those goalposts now. Y'all always talk about rings=GOAT. (Que the Kobe counting gif)
So by y'all logic Bill Russell is the GOAT. He's got the most rings and he was the go to player on his team. So 2 of the coli's GOATS and combined have the same number of rings as

You can really tell who only reads a title before posting

 

[Amare's Right Hook]

Because Wilt was much better and don't give me the "science of the blocked shot" s-hit, he was playing against guys that were 5'8''

 

[Bilz]

OP is a useless fakkit

 

[Donald Trumps Twitter]

Because Wilt was much better and don't give me the "science of the blocked shot" s-hit, he was playing against guys that were 5'8''

 

[Noah]

I see you ignored the fact that I said Bill was drafted onto the second best team in the league, when there were only 8 teams to begin with.

What critique is it on Russell that Red made the trade that he did to get him?

In the three years before getting Russell, Boston topped out at second-best at best. Pretty good, yea, though not the team they were with Russell (i.e. a real contender). They went from 6th in the league in DRtg to 1st immediately with Russell's addition (as well as Heinsohn's, but he wasn't a defender so much as a scrapper/fouler) and as a result had the defense necessary to win championships. Having eight teams in a league can make it easier for one or two teams to run the playoffs like the Lakers and Celtics did, but let's not ignore that damn near every team had HOF talent over that stretch. League wasn't necessarily trash, but like another poster stated above, the average player then was worse than the average player now.

Warriors: Chamberlain, Thurmond, Barry, Rodgers
Nats/76ers: Chamberlain, Greer, Walker, Cunningham, Schayes
Royals: Robertson, Twyman, Embry, Lucas
Lakers: Baylor, West, Chamberlain, Goodrich
Hawks: Pettit, Hagan, Wilkens, Beaty, Hudson
Pistons: DeBusschere, Bing
Knicks: Guerin, Bellamy, Barnett, Reed (Frazier, DeBusschere, Lucas etc. were at the tail end of Russell's career)

Bullets (relocated from Chicago in '64): Bellamy, Unseld, Johnson
Bulls were added in '67 and didn't have a franchise player yet as an expansion team.

There were around 15-20 HOF players (excluding the ones on the Celtics) in the league in a given season. And exactly zero of them were 5'8" average player height then was 6'6".

---------------------

Celtics: Cousy, Sharman, K.C. and Sam Jones, Heinsohn, Sanders, Havlicek

Celtics with Russell: 690-273 (.717)

Celtics without Russell: 26-26 (.500)

How many of Russell's teammates do you think are Hall of Famers without the addition of Russell to that team? For what it's worth I agree with you that he's not the best player ever. But to discredit his achievements because of when he played and the state of the league then is flawed.

But keep on with your logical fallacies.

It's just a discussion mane

 

[Amare's Right Hook]

I got your head bobbin cuz your neck knows it's fat

 

[Donald Trumps Twitter]

In the three years before getting Russell, Boston topped out at second-best at best. Pretty good, yea, though not the team they were with Russell (i.e. a real contender). They went from 6th in the league in DRtg to 1st immediately with Russell's addition (as well as Heinsohn's, but he wasn't a defender so much as a scrapper/fouler) and as a result had the defense necessary to win championships. Having eight teams in a league can make it easier for one or two teams to run the playoffs like the Lakers and Celtics did, but let's not ignore that damn near every team had HOF talent over that stretch. League wasn't necessarily trash, but like another poster stated above, the average player then was worse than the average player now.

Warriors: Chamberlain, Thurmond, Barry, Rodgers
Nats/76ers: Chamberlain, Greer, Walker, Cunningham, Schayes
Royals: Robertson, Twyman, Embry, Lucas
Lakers: Baylor, West, Chamberlain, Goodrich
Hawks: Pettit, Hagan, Wilkens, Beaty, Hudson
Pistons: DeBusschere, Bing
Knicks: Guerin, Bellamy, Barnett, Reed (Frazier, DeBusschere, Lucas etc. were at the tail end of Russell's career)

Bullets (relocated from Chicago in '64): Bellamy, Unseld, Johnson
Bulls were added in '67 and didn't have a franchise player yet as an expansion team.

There were around 15-20 HOF players (excluding the ones on the Celtics) in the league in a given season. And exactly zero of them were 5'8" average player height then was 6'6".

---------------------

Celtics: Cousy, Sharman, K.C. and Sam Jones, Heinsohn, Sanders, Havlicek

Celtics with Russell: 690-273 (.717)

Celtics without Russell: 26-26 (.500)

How many of Russell's teammates do you think are Hall of Famers without the addition of Russell to that team? For what it's worth I agree with you that he's not the best player ever. But to discredit his achievements because of when he played and the state of the league then is flawed.



It's just a discussion mane

Half the HOF’ers you named would be mark madsens/ kyle korvers in todays game.


I mean 18, 7 and 5 in a hyper-paced 1950’s and 60’s made you a Hall of Famer (cousy)



Bill was great, but its like taking Kevin Durant and placing him in the G-League


He gonna drop 40 every night and have a triple double with 6 blocks easy


Im not discrediting his accolades, I’m explaining why lebron stans cant use the “bill russell and (subsequently) Robert Horry excuse when defending lebrons finals win percentage

 

[Donald Trumps Twitter]

I got your head bobbin cuz your neck knows it's fat

I know your head bobbin because your momma cant no more

 

[Remote]

The 57 Celtics had to go through 7 other TOTAL NBA teams, and only had to beat 2 teams and win 7 games for a finals Championship.

The ECF was the first playoff series, then the Finals


Meanwhile the 00 Lakers had to go through 7 other teams JUST IN THE CONFERENCE PLAYOFFS, beat 4 total teams and win 15 games



Keep being delusional

Expansion era.
More teams, more bums that shouldn’t be in the league.

Lakers had it easier.

 

[bright black]

why would anybody complain about a black man dominating...the competition was "weak" and he won a lot...also 2 and 2 is 4...

 

[camer999]

Half the HOF’ers you named would be mark madsens/ kyle korvers in todays game.


I mean 18, 7 and 5 in a hyper-paced 1950’s and 60’s made you a Hall of Famer (cousy)



Bill was great, but its like taking Kevin Durant and placing him in the G-League


He gonna drop 40 every night and have a triple double with 6 blocks easy


Im not discrediting his accolades, I’m explaining why lebron stans cant use the “bill russell and (subsequently) Robert Horry excuse when defending lebrons finals win percentage

The problem with that argument on trying to shyt on Lebron and the finals is that you are giving us a counter by merely saying that Lebron would be the goat in the 90s absolutely decimating expansion league NBA. But admit it the only time Lebron loses he is massively out gunned outside of 2011 of course. But tell me who would win in the same situations bron lost (outside of 2011). Name a player in history, I'll wait. If you wanna apply circumstances to bill Russell's wins then you should do the same with brons losses.

 

[Donald Trumps Twitter]

The problem with that argument on trying to shyt on Lebron and the finals is that you are giving us a counter by merely saying that Lebron would be the goat in the 90s absolutely decimating expansion league NBA. But admit it the only time Lebron loses he is massively out gunned outside of 2011 of course. But tell me who would win in the same situations bron lost (outside of 2011). Name a player in history, I'll wait. If you wanna apply circumstances to bill Russell's wins then you should do the same with brons losses.

Lebron would not get past Jordan and Pippen and Rodman, sorry. Defensively they would close the lane and sweep him like the Spurs did.

^defeated your weak strawman argument.

Then, you come at me on some “who else would be able to beat the teams Lebron lost to, with the exception of 2011”

Well 2007 Spurs swept Lebron. If Im not mistaken those same Spurs were still in the Western Conference a couple years later when Kobe (without Shaq this time) went to 3 straight finals. (And in 2014 with basically the same core)


Just stop.

 

[Sonic Boom of the South]

So your focus is on era and the warped statistics as a result of the relative novelty of the game (and tangentially, the lack of diversity making for decidedly stiffer league) which is reasonable. In particular, scoring and rebounding numbers are inflated while efficiency (more possessions = more shots = more bad shots) and assists (defined more strictly vs. now) are going to be deflated. What doesn't make a lot of sense to me is criticizing Russell and his achievements because he played in said era. What critique is it on Russell that Red made the trade that he did to get him?

Comparing someone doing something decades ago to someone doing something today is going to make for an unfair comparison. Without taking into account Russell's actual playstyle and what made him so revered in the first place is to ignore a huge portion of what this is about: contesting Russell's greatness. Nothing wrong with it, but there are better points to raise. Like his getting outplayed by Chamberlain in the 1967 EDF. Or that the concentration of HOF players on his team (though players like K.C. Jones and Satch Sanders aren't HOF-worthy talent wise...) was higher than basically any other rival's throughout his career (save for Chamberlain's mid-1960s Sixer teams, who were lowkey stacked and led by really great coaching).

Over the course of Russell's career, league average FG% was 42%. Russell's was 44.0%. A little above average. Not great, but his contemporaries (excluding Wilt because he's Wilt) also hover around that 42-44% mark.

Why compare Russell's FG% to Kobe's? Over the course of Kobe's career, league average FG% was 45%. Kobe's career average FG% is 44.7%, so right there. Why hold a mid-20th century player to 21st-century standards? Especially when both are around where they should be in terms of efficiency? When one was asked to do very different things on offense than the other?

Like you said and what should be mentioned, rebounding numbers are inflated. Though in comparison to his peers, Russell was pretty clearly only behind Chamberlain in terms of rebounding the ball. Even with inflated numbers, I'd consider him still comfortably in the top tier of rebounders to ever play (alongside Chamberlain, Rodman, Moses Malone etc.).

What you've neglected to mention is Russell's overall influence on the game.

Spoiler: Initiating Offense

Glamorous, not really, but he is almost always in motion, moving the ball, and part of the fast breaks (whether running it himself or sparking it with a block/outlet). Not a total liability, no?

Spoiler: Defense/rebounding

Russell's defensive ability and intangibles are probably the most well-known and well-covered aspects of his game, doesn't really need to be gone through in-depth.

Spoiler: Miscellaneous shyt

Good overviews of what Russell was about, especially in the playoffs. Speaking of playoffs...

Spoiler: Russell Closeout Game Stats

Russell in elimination games (17-2 record in elimination games) and other closeout games:

1957 Game 3 EDF vs. Nats: 10 pts, 23 reb, 2/4 FT (other stats not given)

1957 Game 7 NBA Finals vs. Hawks: 19 pts, 32 reb, 2 ast, 7/17 FG, 5/10 FT

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1958 Game 5 EDF vs. Warriors: 18 pts, 30 reb, 2 ast, (FG numbers not given)

1958 Game 4 NBA Finals vs. Hawks: 8 pts, 8 reb, 2/7 FG (other stats not given)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1959 Game 7 EDF vs. Nats: 18 pts, 32 reb, 2 ast, 8/23 FG, 2/2 FT *FOULED OUT

1959 Game 4 NBA Finals vs. Lakers: 15 pts, 30 reb, 0 ast, 5/9 FG, 5/10 FT

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1960 Game 6 EDF vs. Warriors: 25 pts, 25 reb, 3 ast, 11/26 FG, 3/4 FT

1960 Game 7 NBA Finals vs. Hawks: 22 pts, 35 reb, 4 ast, 7/15 FG, 8/10 FT

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1961 Game 5 EDF vs. Nats: 25 pts, 33 reb, 3 ast, 11/17 FG, 3/7 FT

1961 Game 5 NBA Finals vs. Hawks: 30 pts, 38 reb, 3 ast, 9/17 FG, 12/17 FT

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1962 Game 7 EDF vs. Warriors: 19 pts, 22 reb, 1 ast, 7/14 FG, 5/5 FT

1962 Game 7 NBA Finals vs. Lakers: 30 pts, 40 reb, 4 ast, 8/18 FG, 14/17 FT

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1963 Game 7 EDF vs. Royals: 20 pts, 24 reb, 4 ast, 8/14 FG, 4/6 FT

1963 Game 6 NBA Finals vs. Lakers: 12 pts, 24 reb, 9 ast, 5/12 FG, 2/5 FT

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1964 Game 5 EDF vs. Royals: 20 pts, 35 reb, 7 ast, 7/16 FG, 6/7 FT

1964 Game 5 NBA Finals vs. Warriors: 14 pts, 26 reb, 6 ast, 5/11 FG, 4/5 FT

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1965 Game 7 EDF vs. 76ers: 15 pts, 29 reb, 8 ast, 7/16 FG, 1/2 FT

1965 Game 5 NBA Finals vs. Lakers: 22 pts, 30 reb, 4 ast, 6/9 FG, 10/11 FT

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1966 Game 5 First Round vs. Royals: 16 pts, 31 reb, 11 ast, 7/13 FG, 2/6 FT

1966 Game 5 ECF vs. 76ers: 18 pts, 31 reb, 6 ast, 6/11 FG, 6/10 FT

1966 Game 7 NBA Finals vs. Lakers: 25 pts, 32 reb, 1 ast, 10/22 FG, 5/5 FT

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1967 Game 4 First Round vs. Knicks: 4 pts, 16 reb, 2 ast, 1/6 FG, 2/4 FT *FOULED OUT

1967 Game 5 ECF vs. 76ers: 4 pts, 21 reb, 7 ast, 2/5 FG, 0/1 FT

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1968 Game 6 First Round vs. Pistons: 15 pts, 23 reb, 9 ast, 6/18 FG, 3/4 FT

1968 Game 7 ECF vs. 76ers: 12 pts, 26 reb, 5 ast, 4/6 FG, 4/10 FT

1968 Game 6 NBA Finals vs. Lakers: 12 pts, 19 reb, 6 ast, 5/7 FG, 2/2 FT

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1969 Game 5 First Round vs. 76ers: 5 pts, 1/3 ft (other stats not given)

1969 Game 6 ECF vs. Knicks: 12 pts, 0/3 ft (other stats not given)

1969 Game 7 NBA Finals vs. Lakers: 6 pts, 21 reb, 6 ast, 2/7 FG, 2/4 FT

Shout out @dantheman9758 for providing YT clips. Great channel worth exploring.

Kill yaself for typing all that


Op is right