It was said that Sharman popularized the jump shot, Fulks predates Sharman and was a star player known for his jump shot. That's all I was saying.
Bill Russell is Criminally Underrated
- Thread starter jose melendez
- Start date
I think you are, in the words of Keith Law, scouting the stat line.
The Lakers were always quite talented, obviously. I cited Bird's rookie year above---take a look at that roster and tell me how you compare it to the Bulls during Jordan's fourth year. Not just state another broad conclusion---actually look at the rosters player by player and show your work.
Young people don't know shit, and if they know who a pre-1980 player is it's probably misguided. I got into a bunch of arguments with a college friend about Pete Maravich. My friend constantly argued that Maravich was one of the 30 or so best players of all-time while I argued that he was largely overrated as a player. The reason he thought Maravich was so great was because his highlights really hold up today. Russell, Wilt, Oscar, Elgin, West, etc. are guys who were by all accounts spectacular players in their times but their highlights looks very routine today.
Dude don't talk down to me.
The 79-80 Celtics actually had four Hall of Fame players on it, although outside of Bird only Tiny could still be considered even near his prime. Still, they had a deep scoring roster with 9 players averaging at least 11 points per game. Cowens was at the end of the line but still was pretty good, 14-8 with good defense. Tiny was good 14-8 in an era when assists were harder to come by. Maxwell had one of his best seasons, averaging 17-9 and shot 60 percent from the field. In fact, all the Celtics players that scored 11 or more points per game shot at least 45 points in the game. The team was built very solidly, with Tiny and Bird supplying the playmaking, Chris Ford and ML Carr as good jump shooters to go with Max, Cowens and Robey banging inside. Robey was good enough to be traded for DJ a few seasons later. Bill Fitch was also one of the best coaches in the league.
The '86-87 Bulls (Jordan's third year) featured three players who scored more than 11 ppg, Jordan, Oakley and John Paxon. Oakley was very good, 14-13 although at 44 percent from the field he wasn't close to being as efficient as Maxwell. Paxson was 11-5 and wasn't in the same realm as Tiny as a ball handler and distributor. Nobody else averaged more than 11 points, 6 rebounds or 5 assists per game. Nobody else would make an All-Star team or hade made one in the past. Nobody else on the roster would be traded for a HOF-level player. Doug Collins was an extremely average coach.
You really think those two rosters are comparable in talent?
You didn't ask me, but that's a really interesting question. Here's the key guys on the Celtics in Bird's first season.
- Bird (23)
- Archibald (31) - hall of famer still playing at an all-star level
- Cowens (31) - hall of famer still playing very productive basketball (14.2 points, 8.1 rebounds, an all-star that year even though he was injured at the time of the ASG); would retire the next year but in 1979-80, he was still quite capable at age 31
- Maxwell (24) - emerging star, averaged 16.9 points and 8.8 rebounds (19.0 and 9.9 the previous year)
- Maravich (32) - last season but still solid contributor - was putting up 17.1 points a game for the Jazz before coming to Boston during the season (averaging 11.5 per game for Boston)
- Robey (24) - solid bench guy - 11.5 points, 6.5 rebounds
- Carr (29) - another solid bench guy - 11.1 points, 4.0 rebounds
- Ford (31) - another solid bench guy - 11.2 points, 42.7% from three
- Henderson (24) - a guy who would be a starter soon, just beginning to make his way in the league
That's not at all a bad roster. Two all-stars (Tiny, Cowens) in their waning, but still effective, years, who would become hall-of-famers. One young stud emerging as a terrific NBA player (Maxwell), an aging star with a little left in the tank (Pistol), and four solid bench guys who all could contribute.
Add a superstar like Bird to that, and it's easy to see how they won 61 games that year.
Now Chicago in Jordan's fourth year (1987-88):
- Jordan
- Pippen (22) - 7.9 points a game, and we didn't know yet that he would be an all-time great player
- Grant (22) - 7.7 points a game, would emerge to be a terrific player
- Oakley (24) - really solid power forward (12.4 points, 13.0 rebounds), the enforcer, but not a great overall player
- Vincent (24) - decent player but never amounted to much
- Corzine (31) - journeyman who had a decent year (10.1, 6.6)
- Paxson (27) - good shooter (34.7% from three)
- Sellers (25) - thought he would become a really good player but it never materialized
Then you have guys like Threatt, Sparrow, 38-year-old Artis Gilmore, Granville Waiters....etc.
Long story short, I think it's clear that the Celtics' roster minus Bird was significantly better than the Bulls' roster minus Jordan.
If I were to rank the top 10 players on those teams, in order, at that time (i.e., I can't count Cowens or Pippen in their prime), here's how I'd rank them:
1. Jordan, Chi
2. Bird, Bos
3. Maxwell, Bos
4. Archibald, Bos
5. Oakley, Chi
6. Cowens, Bos
7. Pippen, Chi (might be lower than this at that point in time)
8. Robey, Bos
9. Carr, Bos
10. Maravich, Bos
I'd give 7 of the top 10 spots to guys on the Celtics. I'd give 4 of the top 6 spots to guys on the Celtics. Admittedly much (most? all?) of that is subjective. But I think it's clear that the Celtics had much more to work with minus their star (Bird) than the Bulls did minus theirs (Jordan).
And all I was saying is that there are differing opinions.
Bob Cousy once said, "I think the jump shot is the worst thing that happened to basketball in ten years." The same article in the Washington Post by Aram Goudsouzian, March 18, 2016, also said:
"No single person invented the jump shot. In the 1930s, a few sporting rebels around the country experimented with the technique. During World War II, military service brought together men from different regions, exposing the shot to more players. The Marine Corps team starred Kenny Sailors and Jumpin’ Joe Fulks, who would become two of the greatest jump shooters in the professional leagues of the late 1940s." https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-basketball-history-that-created-a-marvel-of-a-shooter-like-stephen-curry/2016/03/17/a64b5ca0-a28c-11e5-ad3f-991ce3374e23_story.html
Paul Arizin, Bob Pettit, and George Yardley were also early NBA players noted for their jump shots.
I think that's a pretty optimistic description of the 1979-80 Celtics---among other reasons, Marovich played only 26 games and thus isn't really part of the team. I think it is irrelevant to value Robey by what he was traded for; that is not a reflection of what he was doing for this team, which is the discussion here.
Regardless of how you look at the roster, the thing you have to ask yourself given what you say above is why the highly similar 78-79 Celtics won 29 games and the 79-80 Celtics won 60. They added Bird and ML Carr---which, to me, makes clear Bird's impact. Bill Fitch was new, but let's face it---everyone knows that NBA coaches are worth only so much.
I said the comparison was the Bulls season after the one you looked at, actually. Another posted broke that down already; people will land in different places there, but I think one needs to move past the names to the stats on Cowens/Corzine and Tiny/Vincent. And, I think there's a lot more utility in having great young guys like Pippen and Grant than end-of-career vets or cast-offs like the back-end of the 1980 Celtics. Ultimately, whether people think the rosters are highly similar or not I would be surprised if people really see a 20 win difference in the non Bird/Jordan rosters.
Most importantly, my point here is that the whole can be more or a little less than the sum of the parts based on the way the star interacts, and I think the Celtics record pre/post Bird and the Bulls comparitive stagnation early in Jordan's career shows that, though of course not perfectly. So trying to say 'who are 10 best guys' kind of misses where I was going anyway.
I don't even really know what to say to you anymore. The stats say the Celtics team was much better than that Bulls team minus their best player; the reputation of the players and if you actually watch the two teams play you would notice the Celtics had a much better supporting cast. You dug yourself into a hole here by claiming that the teams were similar in talent and claiming that Jordan "didn't know how to win early in his career" and I don't think you even looked at the rosters of either team.
I am not even clear you know which year Bulls team I am referring to, actually. I'm happy to discuss statements I made, data I cite, or data you cite but simply stating conclusions repeatedly is not going to feed a useful exchange.
I can assure you I looked at the rosters of the teams, and I also watched the teams live. I simply do not believe NBA teams win games based on 'the reputations of the players' and perhaps that as an analytical lens explains why we have such different conclusions.
I listed a bunch of stats, the Celtics players far outperformed the Bulls supporting cast. You obnoxiously asked me to show my work and I went down each roster and over all the contributing players with their stats along with anecdotal evidence. Other posters have also supported the argument; this isn't even a debate anymore.
Last edited:
There was tremendous negativity surrounding the 78-79 team that deserves mention - the ownership swap, the awful trade, a poorly constructed roster, uncertainty about who was really in charge. Players that were expected to contribute were unfocused - Marvin Barnes, Curtis Rowe, I might even put McAdoo in that group.
That team had the talent to be decent - three future hall of famers with something left in the tank and a young and blossoming Maxwell. It did not happen for a variety of reasons.
In Post #28 I mentioned Fulks as the only jump shooter in the era before the Celtics.
It also coached by Dave Cowens. Going from a player-coach to Bill Fitch is a pretty big leap.
The negativity around the 79 Celtics was off the charts. It is hard to think of a storied franchise in worse shape, other than maybe the Leafs almost always since 1970. But do the Leafs deserve storied anymore? The Celtics were considered the worst place to go in the NBA. It depends where your bias resides as to how much credit you can give to Bird. Does Fitch's post Celtic success give him the credit?
I find it hard to believe the idea that Bird, an actual 5 year college player, may have been better than Jordan, two years younger, and had a well documented struggle turning his individual abilities, drive into team success, to the point Phil Jackson got a lot of credit at the time. It is not even an argument that Bird was ultimately a better player in the end. Bird may have been the best prepared rookie in history, coming into a league that where he could exploit his talents.
As for the '3 HOF' guys Cowens (Dawkins was dominating him by the end of the sixers series) was at the end and Maravich played 17 minutes a game. He wasn't even Paul Pierce withe Nets good at that point. Pistol's HOF credentials have a bit to do with college, and with his style, which coincidentally or otherwise did not include much winning. Tiny with Cs is maybe underrated because his scoring was down, but he was still a great player. The fact Bird could make a veteran team like that his team, is a credit to him, The three HOF guys the year before found a way to bitch and moan and lose, and Mcadoo was a lot closer to HOF status that Pistol.
Jordan as a rookie, to use a baseball analogy had ungodly stuff, but he was not yet the pitcher he would be in later. It was possible to get him. later he was like Pedro, when a shutout or no hitter was possible almost every time he got the ball. rookie Bird had a full repertoire of pitches. Jordan's talents and personality made it almost impossible for team mates to know what to do.
I find it hard to believe the idea that Bird, an actual 5 year college player, may have been better than Jordan, two years younger, and had a well documented struggle turning his individual abilities, drive into team success, to the point Phil Jackson got a lot of credit at the time. It is not even an argument that Bird was ultimately a better player in the end. Bird may have been the best prepared rookie in history, coming into a league that where he could exploit his talents.
As for the '3 HOF' guys Cowens (Dawkins was dominating him by the end of the sixers series) was at the end and Maravich played 17 minutes a game. He wasn't even Paul Pierce withe Nets good at that point. Pistol's HOF credentials have a bit to do with college, and with his style, which coincidentally or otherwise did not include much winning. Tiny with Cs is maybe underrated because his scoring was down, but he was still a great player. The fact Bird could make a veteran team like that his team, is a credit to him, The three HOF guys the year before found a way to bitch and moan and lose, and Mcadoo was a lot closer to HOF status that Pistol.
Jordan as a rookie, to use a baseball analogy had ungodly stuff, but he was not yet the pitcher he would be in later. It was possible to get him. later he was like Pedro, when a shutout or no hitter was possible almost every time he got the ball. rookie Bird had a full repertoire of pitches. Jordan's talents and personality made it almost impossible for team mates to know what to do.
Are we miscounting HOFers - -
Cowens - near the end but still useful
Archibald - still a excellent PG
McAdoo - not at his peak but still a terrific scorer
Maravich - role player
in any case i think we agree, Bird, a very polished rookie, entered a situation ripe for a turnaround
For the record I said four Hall of Famers meaning Pistol, Cowens, Tiny and Bird with the concession that Pistol and Cowens were not close to their primes. The original argument was that Bird (and Magic and LeBron) pretty quickly played on good teams early in their careers while it took Jordan longer to win. My point was that, particularly comparing Jordan and Bird, Jordan was saddled with a significantly worse surrounding case than Bird was. The comparison between the "help" Bird and Jordan got during their first four seasons or so I'm pretty sure leans heavily in Bird's favor.
You went down the wrong year's roster, though---don't you get that yet? After stating a stream of wholly baseless conclusions, that means you showed your "work" and demonstrated that you are not paying any attention to the discussion at all.
You are entitled to your opinions, and good luck to you.
That's all fair, and I think it emphasizes that when we evaluate the full career (as opposed to just the peak) we do need to acknowledge that Jordan took some time to get to the apex level. That doesn't necessarily change where he is in the pantheon, but it's part of having a fact-based debate instead of a hagiographic narrative.
Of course, Bill Russell still won more titles than Bird and Jordan put together, so...
I think I laid out the rosters pretty well for those two teams in question. I think it's also helpful to look at the NBA landscape during those times.
When Bird entered as a 23-year old, there was no great team in the Eastern Conference. The year before Bird arrived, the best team in the East was Washington at 54-28. Philly was pretty good, but that's not exactly a murderer's row at that time in the NBA.
When Jordan arrived, he had to deal with a peak-level Celtics franchise, a still-outstanding 76er squad, and an up-and-coming Pistons team that would win back-to-back titles in the late 80s. Plus the dominant Lakers in the West to boot. Heck, in 84-85, Milwaukee won 59 games, in 85-86 they won 57 games, and Atlanta was a 57 win team in 86-87.
So I think Bird had an easier NBA landscape to deal with as soon as he arrived. Part of why it took Jordan more time to get some traction was because there were some all-time great teams in the NBA right when he was coming into the league.
We were talking about early Jordan, I went with the third season and someone else did the fourth. You specifically started the discussion by mentioning Jordan in his third season. Since the difference in roster is like one or two players, it doesn't really matter. You're just trying to cover your ass because you had no idea what you were talking about.
Last edited:
Macadoo was gone, he played on the 79 team. He was sent to Detroit for what tangentially became Parish and McHale. Tghat trade transformed the team and it easy to forget how forgettable most of the 80 Celtics were because the big 3 was in place the next year.
And I don''t 100% agree the team Bird joined was ripe for a turn around. Cowens was at times stressed out (driving a cab) an unhappy player coach, and hated Fitch apparently. So him putting together one final useful season was not a given. He was badly exposed in the playoffs. Maravich was pretty much done and was added later in the season, to much fanfare and little else.
Last edited:
If you're posting in or reading this thread, you absolutely have to see the 30 for 30 Lakers-Celitics documentary. I watched it last night and Mrs O, who knows zero about basketball, was totally engrossed.
FWIW, I am not much of an NBA guy, but like everyone else, I was obsessed with the mid-80's Celtics. I was telling Mrs O about the night of my ninth grade prom (my town's school system had the ninth grade at the junior high school, so we had a prom), when the whole ninth grade gathered at this one girl's house after the dance and *everyone*, including a bunch of teachers, was huddled around TVs in the house watching one of these Celtics-Lakers games (it was Game 5 of the '84 Finals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_NBA_Finals#Game_5) Once this era passed, I lost interest. You could call me a Celtics pink hat.
Anyway, a couple of things pertinent to this thread:
--Re: Bird: the doc does an excellent job of showing just how moribund the NBA in general, and the Celtics in particular, were before Bird and Magic entered the league. Of course, Bird and Magic were just coming off the NCAA finals game, which is still the most highly rated TV basketball broadcast ever, college or pro, so there was lots of hype. But they came into a shitshow. NBA attendance was terrible and there was open speculation in the media that it was because the league was "too black." The Celtics were second banana to the Bruins and were awful on the floor. When Bird came in in 79-80, they went from 29 wins to 61- the biggest single season turnaround in history and almost entirely attributable to him. And he came in with an insane amount of hype as the "Great White Hope" - huge amount of pressure. So re: the Bird v Jordan impact debate above, I'd have to see someone make the Jordan case as well as the doc told the Bird story, but I think you'd have to put Bird's rookie impact up there as a GOAT rookie year of anyone in any sport ever.
The doc started back in the Russell era to set the stage for the arrival of Magic and Bird - to show that the backstory for the rivalry in the 80's was the serial ass-kickings that Russell put on Baylor and West in the 60's.
--Re: the (lack of) quality of the league as a factor in Russell's dominance: in an eight-team league, Red was able to finagle Russell in the '56 draft despite a low pick because Rochester and St. Louis, both picking ahead of Boston, had problems that led them not to pick Russell- financial difficulties and a Jim Crow problem, respectively. The doc sets forth as fact the legend that Red traded the Ice Capades to Rochester to have them pass Russell over in the draft, "No No Nanette" style, which has been debunked, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-cronin/was-bill-russell-really-t_b_7643580.html, but that it still has legs shows how threadbare the NBA was at the time - closer to, say, today's USL/NASL (second-tier American soccer leagues).
--Most notably, I think: the doc, which intersperses footage from Russell's career with interviews with him now, shows just what a tremendous human being he was and is. It's a harrowing depiction of just how racist things were back then, in Boston and elsewhere. Russell being interviewed by a white TV reporter in Mississippi when he went down there to do civil rights work is stunning TV - this cracker asshole is patronizing Russell, who calmly answers his questions in a suit and tie, and you sit there watching this footage fifty years later realizing that the man was basically walking into a war zone and was at high risk for catching a bullet - which of course he knew. Racism hasn't gone away, of course, but for all the attention paid for Jordan's purchase of a bus for his AA baseball team so that they wouldn't have to risk a breakdown on some back road in the deep South, it's eye-opening to see just how bad things were during Russell's career, and how he had to work against that pressure his whole career. That has to factor somewhere in the GOAT conversation.
The Celtics and Lakers parts of the doc are narrated by Donnie Wahlberg and Ice Cube respectively, which is just perfect.
Seriously- check it out.
I think if you reread the posts you'll see otherwise.
In a discussion of the quality of supporting cast, one or two guys often make a huge difference. In this case the 'one or two guys' are actually Pippen and Horace Grant, albeit the very young versions of each. But the players really do matter as does where they are in their career. Just as rookie Pippen and Grant are not their later versions (but are better than flotsam, for sure) Dave Cowens on fumes, losing his passion to play is not (that season) a 'Hall of Famer'. Pete Marovich, at the end playing only a handful of games and a handful of minutes in those games he did play, is not a 'Hall of Famer'
if we're going to have the discussion as a serious one, we need to read what what people actually post, and we need to move beyond lazily stating a conclusion based on hazy recollection (or as the case may be, no knowledge at all). Some folks did the hard work of looking at the rosters, the players, and the actual situation in the player's career rather than call people names and set up straw men from other points in time. I enjoy the discussion with those folks, and thank them.
Last edited:
Thanks for the heads up on that show. I was in tenth grade for that series, which was unquestionably my favorite. Both teams, healthy, and with all of the pertinent players. Total dogfight. Anyone who got to experience it understands how great it was. Side note--without 24x7 sportscenter and cable channel recaps and not much of an internet, the daily newspapers were gold for the Celtics junkie. Hard to imagine that now.
If you're in this thread the 30-on 30 is must see. Its great stuff.
Trying to balance my own homerism with the reality of making a show with two-sides, I found it covered most of the bases pretty well, (but they dropped the ball by not really getting into the wars that the Eastern Conference teams fought in the 80s)
I found myself wanting to say STFU when Ice-Cube gave his commentary.
Re this thread title subject. I watched Russell in person and IMO his inside game on D, as brilliant and transformational as it was, and it was- his ability to figure out the play and postion himself to blow it up, and then turn D to offense with an outlet pass that tiggered a 3 on-2- would largely be lost today. He'd never win an MVP today.
Trying to balance my own homerism with the reality of making a show with two-sides, I found it covered most of the bases pretty well, (but they dropped the ball by not really getting into the wars that the Eastern Conference teams fought in the 80s)
I found myself wanting to say STFU when Ice-Cube gave his commentary.
Re this thread title subject. I watched Russell in person and IMO his inside game on D, as brilliant and transformational as it was, and it was- his ability to figure out the play and postion himself to blow it up, and then turn D to offense with an outlet pass that tiggered a 3 on-2- would largely be lost today. He'd never win an MVP today.
Russell today would probably play like a taller, more athletic version of Draymond Green. His crazy athleticism and defensive instincts would allow him to switch just about any matchup on defense, and he would be the league's best free safety/interior help defender. Russell was not a good shooter but he was a good passer for a big man, so teams would use him a lot as a screener in pick and rolls. He had great hops and so would finish off a lot of lobs at the rim. But he would never shoot well enough to be a team's first or even second option on offense. He would need to play with lineups that had good shooting around him to create floor spacing.
Russell in today's game would be a better version of DeAndre Jordan. Long, terrific rim protector (and GREAT on the P&R defense), superior athlete, poor shooter from the field and from the line, but could probably give you 10+ a game on lobs, fast break dunks, put-backs, and a couple of free throws here and there. I'd guess he'd be a 12 point, 13 rebound, 3 block, 4 assist, 2 steal kind of player. In other words, fantastic, but not remotely an MVP type. Just wouldn't score enough, nor would he be grabbing 23 rebounds a night. And if he ever could have improved his shot (which would be possible given the emphasis on it in today's game), he'd be awesome.
I think Russell would be a lot better than DeAndre. Russell was much slimmer and quicker than DeAndre. Russell was a total athletic freak, in addition to being 6-10 he was a world-class high jumper and sprinter. Can you imagine DeAndre running a sub-50 seconds 400m like Russell did? Russell would be quick enough to switch onto guys like Durant and LeBron and hold his own. DeAndre, as good as he is, is just too slow to do that. Something more like a faster Anthony Davis with better defensive instincts but who couldn't shoot would probably be closer.
I don't think he would be good enough on offense to win an MVP, but he would still be a totally destructive player on defense.
I don't think he would be good enough on offense to win an MVP, but he would still be a totally destructive player on defense.
Well I did say he'd be better than DeAndre. But DeAndre has been first team all defense the past two seasons, so it's not like he's remotely a slouch. Dude can really get after it.
Russell would also be a very intelligent player who could help in so many other ways. No doubt he'd be a force in today's game. Just not on the offensive end in terms of him scoring outside of points right around the rim.
Russell would also be a very intelligent player who could help in so many other ways. No doubt he'd be a force in today's game. Just not on the offensive end in terms of him scoring outside of points right around the rim.
Both the players Auerbach gave up for Russell ended up in the HoF (Easy Ed Macauley and Cliff Hagan).
Is Kawhi a fair comparison? Maybe before the scoring explosion this year?
But maybe thats not fair either. Seems like I have heard the stories that "IF Russ had wanted to, he could have scored 30 a game" (grain of salt and all that...) but would have impacted his rebounds and D which is what made the celts team "work".
Fair?
On game finder I only found 65 games where he scored 20 or more....so maybe not?
But maybe thats not fair either. Seems like I have heard the stories that "IF Russ had wanted to, he could have scored 30 a game" (grain of salt and all that...) but would have impacted his rebounds and D which is what made the celts team "work".
Fair?
On game finder I only found 65 games where he scored 20 or more....so maybe not?
True, but Easy Ed was a soft center even for those times, and Hagan was a draft pick, so nobody knew what he'd turn out to be. Red did the right thing, which I'm sure you'd agree. Of course, Walter Brown giving up the Ice Follies for a week to Rochester...they'll never get that revenue back.
Russell had plenty of shooting firepower around him in Cousy, Sharman and Heinsohn to begin with, and as they got older, Sam Jones and John Havlicek took up the slack. Just noticed, as great a shooter as he was, Sam didn't average 30 minutes a game until his fifth season (age 28), they were so loaded.
In a like vein Havlicek (IMO he was terribly under-rated) took over Ramsey's 6th man role for the first (IIRC) 5 years of his career. The depth of those teams was nuts.
I didn't see that, but now that you mentioned it, I went back through the thread and saw it. Well, suffice it to say...I agree with you and think you're pretty spot on.
Macauley played two full seasons for St. Louis at ages 28 to 29, then just 14 games when he was 30. He was in favor of the trade as his son was seriously ill (spinal meningitis) and he also had business interests in St. Louis, his home town. I don't know if his son's condition led to his retiring at an early age or whether his weighing only 185 while playing C/PF shortened his career but he was hired by the club as coach and executive vice president. Incidentally, Macauley was the first Celtic to have his number retired. He was Auerbach's initial offer for Russell but the Hawks owner wanted Hagan, too.
I saw one all-time ranking that had him at #6 - and there's probably other rankings like that out there - so yeah, I'd call that criminally underrated
I've long rated Jordan and Russell as 1A and 1B as the greatest ever. I remember TV commentator Russell once presenting new champion and MVP series Jordan one of those trophies and saying I don't know if you're the best ever, but noone has ever been better than you. I think that was his way of saying they're both the greatest - and he was right! Russell was the greatest winner ever, the greatest shot blocker ever, maybe the greatest defensive player ever, and along with Wilt, the greatest rebounder ever. That's a lot of greatest evers, and reason to put him right at the top. And a career 15 ppg is nothing to sneeze at either
Being ranked #6 in the history of the NBA is not criminally underrating him. It may be underrating him (it may also be *over*rating him) but not "criminally" so.
Legitimate arguments can be made that the following players should be ranked higher than Russell on an "all-time" list: Jordan, LeBron, Chamberlain, Magic, Kareem. Of course, there are legitimate arguments for Russell over these guys as well. So to have him in this group, ranked somewhere, is right and is not, IMO, "criminally" underrating him. But I guess YMMV.
I actually take this just the opposite way. No dispute over the fact that Jordan was a great player, but he didn't get a sniff at a ring until the teams led by Bird and Magic aged out. I've never believed that peak Bulls would beat peak Lakers or 1986 Celts (though fwiw, I don't think anyone would beat 1986 Cs).
So yeah, MJ definitely belongs in a GOAT discussion - but so do Bird and Magic, who had to face each other.
On the original point of the thread, Bill Russell definitely belongs in the GOAT debate too. If you pretty well always find a way to win, it's hard to argue that other guys would have found a way to beat you. Russ beat some very deep Lakers teams, who would no doubt get additional cred if they had gotten to play in a league where Russell didn't play for Boston,
A couple of folks have mentioned the 29-53 Celtics team that Larry Bird joined; that team was not quite as devoid of talent as its record indicated.
Dave Cowens, while clearly in the decline stage, was still a pretty good player. Maxwell was up-and-coming, and that pre-Bird season is where he started to showcase his inside scoring dominance. Tiny Archibald was recovering from missing the entire prior season with a torn Achilles, and was essentially attempting to regain his form. Chris Ford was a decent shooter. Bottom line is that the team that Bird joined had a good mix of young and veteran talent.
Cowens, of course, was named player-coach after the team dumped Sanders after a 2-12 start, and then he decided to stop playing altogether after 68 games when it was clear the team was going nowhere, at which point he decided to focus solely on coaching. The team went 25-30 when Cowens was both coaching and playing; once he relegated himself to the bench, the team went 2-11 to close out the lost season. And to clear up a misconception: Cowens did not drive a cab that season. That incident occurred when he took a leave of absence early in the 1976-77 season.
Of course, that 1978-79 team had a number of other issues beyond coaching. The Bob McAdoo trade angered fans and almost caused Red to walk out the door. Marvin Barnes and Curtis Rowe were on the roster, and their departures the following offseason were classic examples of addition by subtraction.
Dave Cowens, while clearly in the decline stage, was still a pretty good player. Maxwell was up-and-coming, and that pre-Bird season is where he started to showcase his inside scoring dominance. Tiny Archibald was recovering from missing the entire prior season with a torn Achilles, and was essentially attempting to regain his form. Chris Ford was a decent shooter. Bottom line is that the team that Bird joined had a good mix of young and veteran talent.
Cowens, of course, was named player-coach after the team dumped Sanders after a 2-12 start, and then he decided to stop playing altogether after 68 games when it was clear the team was going nowhere, at which point he decided to focus solely on coaching. The team went 25-30 when Cowens was both coaching and playing; once he relegated himself to the bench, the team went 2-11 to close out the lost season. And to clear up a misconception: Cowens did not drive a cab that season. That incident occurred when he took a leave of absence early in the 1976-77 season.
Of course, that 1978-79 team had a number of other issues beyond coaching. The Bob McAdoo trade angered fans and almost caused Red to walk out the door. Marvin Barnes and Curtis Rowe were on the roster, and their departures the following offseason were classic examples of addition by subtraction.
Bill Russell underrated?
30 for 30 IceT: James Worthy ran the floor like no other big in history.
Fuck off
30 for 30 IceT: James Worthy ran the floor like no other big in history.
Fuck off
Slightly more footage from the event above - the career highlights they showed before his "remarks".
Not sure if this deserves its own thread:
NBA legend Bill Russell is getting his own documentary at Netflix. The film will feature interviews with Russell and archives from the life and career of the 5x MVP, 11x Champ, 12x All-Star, and Olympic gold medalist.
NBA legend Bill Russell is getting his own documentary at Netflix. The film will feature interviews with Russell and archives from the life and career of the 5x MVP, 11x Champ, 12x All-Star, and Olympic gold medalist.
BTW, how did it work being both a player and a coach? Did he call the substitutions from the floor, or did someone else manage that? I can see a player managing the play calls and ATO stuff and whatever - but managing the bench and rotations as a player seems challenging.
Yeah coaching was way less sophisticated than it was today. Rotations were not as important as your core players played way more often, and overall the tactics were just not that advanced compared to future generations. I believe that Havlicek was basically Russell's assistant, managing the offense while Sam Jones handled substitutions, and Russell ran the defense and did the typical game management stuff.