Bill Russell is Criminally Underrated

jose melendez

Earl of Acie
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2003
30,975
Geneva, Switzerland
With all of the "has LeBron caught Jordan for GOAT" stuff. It has prompted me to look back at the career of the man who despite having the finals MVP named for him, is still somehow chronically under appreciated.

The statistical case may not be there for Bill Russell--his best season win shares wise was 52nd all time, and his career is good for 19th (NBA/ABA)-- and I'm not a look at the rings guy, But when one achieves on the but when one wins with consistency Russell did, as the best player on the team, in both college and pros, you have to start thinking about it.

He won the NBA championship in 11 of his 13 years, and in one of the two he lost he missed much of the finals with a foot injury. The other one he lost in the semis. He also won two college championships in three years of playing (including a 55 game win streak). So over the course of 16 years in college and pros he won 13 championships.

Different times, of course, and I don't imagine anyone could dominate like that now, but given that he won the championship in 2/3 of the college years he played and 84% of NBA years, I think he has a legitimate case. Lebron has to appear in 3 more finals just to equal the number Russell won. If Jordan had not taken two years off and won eight in a row, he would still be three short of Russell. and all of this is without mentioning that all but his first years overlapped with Chamberlain--another all time great at the same position.

As I said, I'm not a look at the rings guy, but that is absolutely otherworldly, and the fact that he did it in college and the pros has to make you wonder if the "his team was just better" is that strong an argument.
 

JayMags71

Member
SoSH Member
He won the NBA championship in 11 of his 13 years, and in one of the two he lost he missed much of the finals with a foot injury. The other one he lost in the semis. He also won two college championships in three years of playing (including a 55 game win streak). So over the course of 16 years in college and pros he won 13 championships.
And he was captain of the gold medal winning U.S. Basketball Team at the 1956 Olympics.
 

jose melendez

Earl of Acie
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2003
30,975
Geneva, Switzerland
And he was captain of the gold medal winning U.S. Basketball Team at the 1956 Olympics.
And took the 56 Olympics scoring title.

Look, he pretty obviously wouldn't win 11 out of 13 now--I'm not sure any one could, but in the context of his time, not only did Russell dominate the NBA like no one else, but all major North American team sports. Not Michael Jordan, not Babe Ruth, not Rocket Richard, not Tom Brady,no one.
 

TheRooster

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2001
2,483
Great post Jose. We need to remember that while free agency didn't exist in Russell's era, those guys still had egos. He (and Red) found a way to keep everyone motivated and focused on winning over an unbelievably long period of time. As I started following the NBA in the late 70s and through the 80s until today, I often got enamored with the hot star of the moment. My dad, who frequented the Garden in the 60s, ALWAYS cut me off and reminded me of Russell's exploits. He wasn't merely on all those championship teams. He was generally the best player and unquestionably the leader. There has never been anyone like Russ in the history of team sports.
 

GreenMonster49

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
644
Speaking of Russell's exploits that will not be duplicated today, he was the head coach for the last two of those championship teams.
 

jose melendez

Earl of Acie
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2003
30,975
Geneva, Switzerland
Great post Jose. We need to remember that while free agency didn't exist in Russell's era, those guys still had egos. He (and Red) found a way to keep everyone motivated and focused on winning over an unbelievably long period of time. As I started following the NBA in the late 70s and through the 80s until today, I often got enamored with the hot star of the moment. My dad, who frequented the Garden in the 60s, ALWAYS cut me off and reminded me of Russell's exploits. He wasn't merely on all those championship teams. He was generally the best player and unquestionably the leader. There has never been anyone like Russ in the history of team sports.
The more I look at it, the more convinced I am becoming that Jordan, great as his was, is overrated. If you want to argue numbers straight numbers Wilt is the best, if you want to argue being the best player on the champ, it's Russell, and if you want to balance the two, it's probably Kareem. Obviously there's a case for Jordan as the GOAT, but it is by no means the no brainer that people treat it as. It's at best in the world of Tom Brady's claim.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,670
How do they calculate win shares for Russell when they didn't count blocked shots back then and by accounts he was regularly blocking 10+ shots?

Edit: Russell's and Kareem's GOAT cases are strengthened if you include amateur play.

Edit2: Russell's record in NCAA, Olympic, NBA winner take all games: 21-0. When someone matches that let me know.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,670
Thanks.

Russell also won all those titles with the second best player of the era bouncing around from team to team trying to beat him. It worked once, for a year. too. It didn't work when Wilt went and created the original patently unfair completely unbeatable big 3 super team.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,192
It is 11 of 13 in the NBA, plus 2 NCAA titles in three eligible seasons, and he was injured one of the two NBA seasons he didn't win the title. So in his last 16 seasons of competitive basketball he won 13 titles and was tied in the finals when injured in another season.

The man is, really without there being a serious question, the greatest winner in the history of American team sports.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,406
around the way
I love this thread. My dad was the biggest Russell fan ever and watched his entire career. The man didn't know how to lose. He controlled the game on defense and rebounding. Apparently he tried out for the decathalon as well as the hoop team in 56. Unbelievable athlete with insane drive and brilliant on top of it. What he did won't be duplicated.
 

Was (Not Wasdin)

family crest has godzilla
SoSH Member
Jul 26, 2007
3,721
The Short Bus
The more I look at it, the more convinced I am becoming that Jordan, great as his was, is overrated. If you want to argue numbers straight numbers Wilt is the best, if you want to argue being the best player on the champ, it's Russell, and if you want to balance the two, it's probably Kareem. Obviously there's a case for Jordan as the GOAT, but it is by no means the no brainer that people treat it as. It's at best in the world of Tom Brady's claim.
I should note that Jordan leads in Win Shares/48 min (of course Chris Paul is #2 in that category)
This is where I am, although I think "overrated" needs to be put in context. Jordan is clearly one of the top 3-4? players of all time, at worst. But a solid case can be made for others as the GOAT, as Jose has done. To me the biggest knock on Jordan is that he really didnt win anything until everyone else around him got old-the Celtics, the Lakers and Pistons. Had Philly not screwed up royally by dumping the pick that became Brad Daugherty and by jettisoning Barkley and even Moses (who was still pretty effective into the early 90s), they would have been a tough challenge for the Bulls.

The guy who I think gets terribly underrated is Magic, and I say that as a lifelong Celtics fan who loathed him when he played.
 

Blacken

Robespierre in a Cape
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2007
12,152
It's not just that his team was better. It's that everyone else was pretty lousy. Russell was a physical freak in an era where players took smoke breaks at half-time. Dude was, by all accounts, amazing, but if you're not adjusting for strength of opposition, I question the meaning of what you're measuring. And I think this is true in every sport; the baseline player gets better and better as players specialize and train younger and younger (barring extreme circumstances, none of which really come to mind right now). LeBron has done what he's done in a league where the average player is bigger, faster, much stronger, and has more in-depth experience with the game at speed and with the demands of a more technical skill set.

And that isn't to take anything away from Russell. The NBA of the 50's and 60's is literally a different game from the NBA of the 80's to today (to the degree where I'd support having pre-3PT and post-3PT entries in record books, etc.) and trying to put them in the same conversation is kind of fruitless. I think that there's a more reasonable comparison between Jordan and LeBron, and I'd bet that (again, barring sea changes) comparisons with LeBron and players going forward will make more sense than pretty much any pre-3PT player because of diminishing returns on that athletic specialization.

For me, LeBron is the GOAT of the modern NBA and while it could be close it is definitive. The dude has demonstrated the ability to do effectively anything on the court by himself and win when he at least had a shred of help (last year put the nails in a whole row of coffins as far as I'm concerned). Jordan is somewhere after that, mostly on the completeness of his game rather than purely on offense and "count the ringz", and then there's a cluster of guys the next level down--Magic and a few others, probably including Curry by the end of his career if not already.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,670
I love Magic, and he spent most of his career underrated, but I am mystified by the new-fangled consensus he was better than Bird. I mean he was better than Bird from 1989-1991, and he won more titles including 1987&88. But Bird won ROY in 1980 then went 2,2,2,1,1,1 in MVP voting; for the first seven years of their careers basically nobody thought it was a question that Bird was better. Yeah, last impressions and all but at worst it's a draw.

Edit: Re Was's post.
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
I think it's hard for people that didn't grow up in that era (like me) to understand what made Bill Russell so special. We didn't get an opportunity to see him play and things like defensive prowess and leadership don't translate easily. When you look at the numbers Wilt is more impressive and even the 11 titles seems quaint because there were only 8 teams. I'm open-minded about it and generally consider him one of the greats just on the impeccable reputation he had, but I have hard time wedging him into the conversation when discussing the greats with my peers. Unfortunately the farther we get from his playing time the less relevant he is likely to become.
 

scott bankheadcase

I'm adequate!!
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2006
3,057
hoboken
The two most underrated players of all-time are Bill Russell and Shaquille O'Neal. Their power was so dominating, the game had to change for them. Russell gets underrated because of both recency bias and the lack of video from his playing days.

Shaq gets underrated because his power didn't show in highlights the way MJ's gracefulness did. But Shaq was dominant, and the refs didn't know how to officiate with someone that dominant in the game. He's not Russell and he's not GOAT, but criminally underrated these days? Absolutely.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,192
The other interesting comparison to make on Jordan is with Bird.

To quickly summarize, each joined a bad team, and Bird's team immediately improved far more than Jordan's did as a rookie. Then, each of them missed essentially a full season in their prime/late prime---MJ for baseball (or whatever :) ) and Bird with the injury. The Bulls record dropped far less than the Celtics without their star.

It's obviously very hard to make those comparisons with great confidence because other players are in motion too, but the case for Bird over Jordan is, I think, mostly about team impact. Just as the case for Russell as the greatest ever is (and to a degree, the case for Magic being in the discussion)
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,670
I'm not saying Bird was better than Jordan. But he was a better shooter, passer and rebounder. And was 6-0 against Jordan in playoff games.

Of course Jordan was a better scorer, better defender (edit:and better ball-handler) and won more titles.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,957
Saskatoon Canada
I love basketball history. I read everything I could find on hoops from and as a kid Wilt with 50 a game, 100 points, was the guy I admired the most. Throw in all the legendary stories of his ability and Wilt is legend that transcends basketball. When i watch the old films the NBA of the 50s and 60s looks weak. But there are still clips of Wilt and Russell that show athletically they would still be elite in today' game. There is video evidence of Wilt blocking shots as high or higher above the rim than anyone, of Russell running the floor faster than other bigs, etc.

Russell would be lot like Deandre Jordan in today's game on O, blocking shots rebounding, dunking everything around the rim. He would be in another world running the floor, and I expect he would change the use of ball screens with his quickness more like KG on the perimeter. As an uber quick 6-9 guy he may be an elite perimeter defender. He could certainly be a wing finisher. Despite his legendary work ethic, I doubt he becomes much of a shooter. What he would turn into with today' training, etc is scary.

Another comp is Rodman with McHale's length and Bird's attitude toward's winning. Maybe Abigger James Worthy if he work on his O more.

 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
9,154
San Francisco
The thing about Jordan is he's got so much legend around him, in my opinion mostly deserved, that goes above and beyond numbers. The Flu Game? Winning every finals he made? The shot over Byron Russell? The game against the Sonics after his father died? His career was like if you were going to write a corny movie about the best ever at basketball.
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,846
Russell's career is hard to evaluate now. On the one hand, the 11 titles in 13 years is a slightly inflated accomplishment. The NBA was an 8-team league at the time and you only had to win two playoff series to win the title. Russell was also always surrounded by good players and quality coaching. Russell played a crucial role in elevating the talent around him to a higher level, but there was a lot of talent there to start with. If Russell had played on crappy teams with poor coaches, how would his career have been different? He would have made any team a lot better, but he couldn't have turned a perennial 20-win team into an 11-time champion.

OTOH, stats will always severely underrate him. Partly because they didn't have stats or awards back then to measure his defensive contributions (if there had been a DPOY award in the 60s, he probably would have won it just about every year of his career), partly because Russell never cared at all about stats and was always focused solely on winning. Modern efficiency metrics ding him for his poor shooting, but his teams never really needed his shooting or scoring. If he'd played on teams that needed him to shoot more, maybe he would have worked on improving his shot more.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
I love basketball history. I read everything I could find on hoops from and as a kid Wilt with 50 a game, 100 points, was the guy I admired the most. Throw in all the legendary stories of his ability and Wilt is legend that transcends basketball. When i watch the old films the NBA of the 50s and 60s looks weak. But there are still clips of Wilt and Russell that show athletically they would still be elite in today' game. There is video evidence of Wilt blocking shots as high or higher above the rim than anyone, of Russell running the floor faster than other bigs, etc.
To further this part of your post:
Someone upthread mentioned Russell's decathlon. Wilt was on the Globetrotters.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,192
I think Russell was a much better passer than those comps (Deandre Jordan, Rodman)---his outlet passing was a real part of his value. He also, in the context of his era, was a better scorer than he's often given credit for though not a super-elite one.

In terms of impact the guy some people talk about is Bill Walton, whose 1977 Blazer team had some similarities to Russell-era Celtics.

There just aren't many guys who had that defensive value (there are a few---Rudy Gobert being a modern sort-of comp) and contributed a bunch in other ways as well.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,192
The thing about Jordan is he's got so much legend around him, in my opinion mostly deserved, that goes above and beyond numbers. The Flu Game? Winning every finals he made? The shot over Byron Russell? The game against the Sonics after his father died? His career was like if you were going to write a corny movie about the best ever at basketball.
I get the narrative, but one also does have to address why it is the best ever lost more games than he won his first two full seasons in the league. Many of the guys he might be compared to never struggled to win actual basketball games like he did and that has to matter.

Some of that is supporting cast, but (say) Bird's rookie team didn't have mchale, parish,etc....it was the prior 60 loss team plus Bird and ML Carr and won 30 more games.

I think Jordan may well be the best player in NBA history, but there are a few other cases to be made which have their own strengths, too. And I agree with the thread starter that the case for Jordan over Russell doesn't get nearly as much scrutiny as it should---we can argue that Russell was a product of his team's success but what about at USF, who never won anything before or after him?

Bill Russell's teams changed a lot along the way, and they accomplished their goal in basically twice as many seasons as Michael Jordan's teams did. There's a 'manning vs brady' feel to the discussion and I think in both cases we shouldn't dismiss winning quite as easily as we do.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,957
Saskatoon Canada
I did neglect passing.

A friend of mine is an former olympic volleyball player. He was telling me about a master thesis a guy did in biomechanics "Which NBA player's Abilities Would Translate best to Volleyball" and aid the guy concluded Russell would have the physical ability to be the best VB player ever. He thought had he ended up in San Fran today, he would be the best Vball player of all time. A lefty, with the length agility quick hops, power, timing, etc. Same guy said stories of Wilt being agood volleyball player were largely myth. Wilt's fame helped Vball so they all played along.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,874
San Andreas Fault
And that isn't to take anything away from Russell. The NBA of the 50's and 60's is literally a different game from the NBA of the 80's to today (to the degree where I'd support having pre-3PT and post-3PT entries in record books, etc.) and trying to put them in the same conversation is kind of fruitless. I think that there's a more reasonable comparison between Jordan and LeBron, and I'd bet that (again, barring sea changes) comparisons with LeBron and players going forward will make more sense than pretty much any pre-3PT player because of diminishing returns on that athletic specialization.

.
If you go far enough back, the NBA game of Russell's, Cousy's, et al era was a lot closer to today's game than it was to the one that just preceded it. In the 40s and early 50s, you had no great outlet passing that led to fast breaks. You had teams taking their time dribbling it up the floor and looking for an open man to take a two handed set shot. Hardly anyone except Joe Fulks even used a jump shot. Nobody was dunking the ball yet. Those Celtics opened up the game for good.

Impossible to compare Russell with the more modern day centers or with Jordan or lebron. For me, it's sufficient to say that he was and probably always will be the biggest winner of all time.
 

Was (Not Wasdin)

family crest has godzilla
SoSH Member
Jul 26, 2007
3,721
The Short Bus
To further this part of your post:
Someone upthread mentioned Russell's decathlon. Wilt was on the Globetrotters.
Not only was he on the Globetrotters, he played PG for them. And he led the league in assists in 67-68 after tiring of having everyone bitch about him not passing enough.
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,846
I get the narrative, but one also does have to address why it is the best ever lost more games than he won his first two full seasons in the league. Many of the guys he might be compared to never struggled to win actual basketball games like he did and that has to matter.

Some of that is supporting cast, but (say) Bird's rookie team didn't have mchale, parish,etc....it was the prior 60 loss team plus Bird and ML Carr and won 30 more games.

I think Jordan may well be the best player in NBA history, but there are a few other cases to be made which have their own strengths, too. And I agree with the thread starter that the case for Jordan over Russell doesn't get nearly as much scrutiny as it should---we can argue that Russell was a product of his team's success but what about at USF, who never won anything before or after him?

Bill Russell's teams changed a lot along the way, and they accomplished their goal in basically twice as many seasons as Michael Jordan's teams did. There's a 'manning vs brady' feel to the discussion and I think in both cases we shouldn't dismiss winning quite as easily as we do.
This is a little unfair to Jordan. Jordan was 21 when he came into the league, while Bird was 23, so he was not as developed as a player yet. And Jordan missed most of his second season with a broken foot, he only played in 18 games and only started 7 (he was on a minutes restriction when he first came back). In 86-87, Jordan's age-23 season (so comparable to Bird's rookie year), Jordan averaged 37 ppg and the team finished 40-42 (their second and third best players were Oakley and Paxson).
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,192
This is a little unfair to Jordan. Jordan was 21 when he came into the league, while Bird was 23, so he was not as developed as a player yet. And Jordan missed most of his second season with a broken foot, he only played in 18 games and only started 7 (he was on a minutes restriction when he first came back). In 86-87, Jordan's age-23 season (so comparable to Bird's rookie year), Jordan averaged 37 ppg and the team finished 40-42 (their second and third best players were Oakley and Paxson).
Agreed, and I stated it in an intentionally provocative way.

Though, on your point about Jordan's injury I skipped his injured second year and referred only to his first and third (e.g. his first two full seasons), each of which were losing seasons.

Compare Bird's rookie year team to Jordan's third year team---I don't think there's 20 games of difference in the supporting casts. I think the reality is that Jordan took a few years (and some Phil Jackson coaching) to evolve from an amazing scorer into an amazing winner. Which, there is no question, he did.
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,846
Agreed, and I stated it in an intentionally provocative way.

Though, on your point about Jordan's injury I skipped his injured second year and referred only to his first and third (e.g. his first two full seasons), each of which were losing seasons.

Compare Bird's rookie year team to Jordan's third year team---I don't think there's 20 games of difference in the supporting casts. I think the reality is that Jordan took a few years (and some Phil Jackson coaching) to evolve from an amazing scorer into an amazing winner. Which, there is no question, he did.
Well, in the next season, 1987-88 (long before Collins was fired and Jackson took over), Jordan won the scoring title, DPOY, and MVP and the team went 50-32.

League strength matters too. The NBA was a much stronger, deeper league in 1987 than it was in 1980. The third best team in the East in 1980 was the Atlanta Hawks, and I could not have named a single player on their roster before I just looked it up (they were before my time). The third best team in the East in 1987 were the Bad Boy Pistons, who would eventually win consecutive championships and had multiple hall of famers.

There's something to your point, but I don't think the effect is that big.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,673
It's a fools errand to compare players from bygone eras; even comparing Jordan and LeBron is, in my opinion, pretty hard to accurately do. LeBron's stats in the latest finals are pretty outrageous, but how can you really compare his stats to Jordan's? The pace was outstanding, to the point Cleveland was taking 100 shots in a single game and averaging 113 ppg. Jordan's best finals (probably) was in '93 when Chicago didn't score over 113 in any game and yet Jordan still managed to score 41-8-6. Basketball reference has a "pace" rating to keep track of how many possessions are taking place in a game and how fast the teams are moving up and down the floor. The '93 Finals had a pace of 89, which was pretty good for that era. The 2017 had a pace rating of over 100, which is the highest rating in a very long time. Combine the differences in pace and three point shooting, you can't just look at counting stats.

The difference in pace and the amount of three-point shots has greatly changed the game and given a unique aspect, just like how in Russell's era the lack of black players and focus on the fast break gave it a unique look.

One thing I will say about Jordan is that I do believe if he was born in 1990 he would be an incredible three point shooter. MJ was an excellent mid-range shooter and took a shitload of shots but still shot 51 percent from the field for his career (and took 63 percent of his FGA from mid-range). I think it's safe to say Jordan was a very good shooter, and if he came into the game with a focus on three-point shooting and started shooting them from an early age he would probably be one of the best three point shooters in the league. Of course you can't prove that; which is ultimately why I find these debates futile, even if they are fun to have.

Going back to Russell, nobody questions that he was the most successful player of all-time when it came to winning and no player dominated winning in any era like Russell. At the same time I think that nobody questions that if Russell came along today he wouldn't be nearly as dominant. I think part of the issue is that when we talk about the GOAT there isn't really a clear understanding on what are we talking about. If I am playing a game of pick-up basketball with all the legendary players, I'm probably picking LeBron first because the game has evolved as time has gone on and players have gotten bigger, faster and more focused on skill thanks to technology, better coaching, year-round basketball culture with AAU and elite camps and other things. In a lot of ways being the penultimate player of the current generation means you are the penultimate player of all-time.

Does that make LeBron the GOAT? Theoretically yes it does, but spiritually I'm not so sure. To draw a comparison between say Russell and LeBron; look at comedy. Bob Hope was the most famous comedian of his time and was spectacularly famous and successful, but if you were to watch his work in 2017, you probably wouldn't laugh that much. Louis C.K. in 2017 is much funnier, his content seems fresher, his delivery is better, etc. That doesn't necessarily make him a greater comedian in the grand scheme of things. The Playstation 4 has better graphics, sound, average game quality, depth, etc. than the NES; but that doesn't make the PS4 a better game console.

Maybe those are not perfect examples but hopefully you get the idea.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,192
OK, but how we're in his fourth season and he still wasn't able to push a team---now one with Horace Grant and Scottie Pippen (granted, very young verisons) as well as non-bad vets Oakley/Vincent/Corzine--to as many wins as this year's Celtics team. Progress, but still you have to acknowledge the lack of team success is a big negative on the ledger here given that we're describing him as the best player of all time.

Compare that team success to Bird (60 wins as a rookie), Magic (60 wins and a title as a 20 year old rookie, albeit as second-best guy on team), Lebron (50 wins at age 21), Duncan, Kareem, etc.

It's a real negative relative to the 'competition'. We often think of later-career Jordan who was, without question, a spectacular all around player and winner...I think we need to decide if we're measuring 'peak' or 'overall career' and if it is the latter, this is all a big question for Jordan. If it's peak...well, this is all pretty irrelevant.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
As one who saw the Celtics before Russell came around, I would add that the game was very different back then, not just in the rules and style of play but with Auerbach's philosophy in running the Celtics. There was no shot clock until the 1954-55 season so Bob Cousy would dribble out the clock.

December 10, 1953: The final buzzer sounded: 93 all. In the overtime, in what many critics adjudge the finest exhibition of dribbling they have ever seen, Cousy controlled the ball for just about four of the five minutes of play, killing the clock once Boston was ahead and drawing foul after foul when as many as three Knicks at a time tried desperately to get the ball away from him. Final score: Boston 113—New York 108. -- Herbert Warren Wind, Sports Illustrated, January 09, 1956 https://www.si.com/vault/1956/01/09/668250/bob-cousy-basketballs-creative-genius

Jump shots were still pretty new (Bill Sharman was the one who popularized it in the NBA); the shot more often seen was the set shot, usually two-handed; bank shots; long hook shots; it wasn't unusual to see players shooting foul throws underhanded.

As for Russell and the Celtics under Auerbach, they were a TEAM: no emphasis on leading the league in anything except titles. It was interesting watching them play the Lakers with Chamberlain, West, and Baylor. Shut one down and let the rest have their points. The Jones Boys (sorry if that isn't PC, Sam and KC) became stars while they were substitutes, spelling Cousy and Sharman when the tempo needed to be picked up. Traveling was called and there was only one set of rules (unlike today when superstars have their own, regulars another, etc.).
 

Hagios

New Member
Dec 15, 2007
672
As I said, I'm not a look at the rings guy, but that is absolutely otherworldly, and the fact that he did it in college and the pros has to make you wonder if the "his team was just better" is that strong an argument.
I don't know, it's like judging a pitcher or QB by wins or Bobby Orr by his plus minus. You're talking about players on great teams with great teammates.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,673
As one who saw the Celtics before Russell came around, I would add that the game was very different back then, not just in the rules and style of play but with Auerbach's philosophy in running the Celtics. There was no shot clock until the 1954-55 season so Bob Cousy would dribble out the clock.

December 10, 1953: The final buzzer sounded: 93 all. In the overtime, in what many critics adjudge the finest exhibition of dribbling they have ever seen, Cousy controlled the ball for just about four of the five minutes of play, killing the clock once Boston was ahead and drawing foul after foul when as many as three Knicks at a time tried desperately to get the ball away from him. Final score: Boston 113—New York 108. -- Herbert Warren Wind, Sports Illustrated, January 09, 1956 https://www.si.com/vault/1956/01/09/668250/bob-cousy-basketballs-creative-genius

Jump shots were still pretty new (Bill Sharman was the one who popularized it in the NBA); the shot more often seen was the set shot, usually two-handed; bank shots; long hook shots; it wasn't unusual to see players shooting foul throws underhanded.

As for Russell and the Celtics under Auerbach, they were a TEAM: no emphasis on leading the league in anything except titles. It was interesting watching them play the Lakers with Chamberlain, West, and Baylor. Shut one down and let the rest have their points. The Jones Boys (sorry if that isn't PC, Sam and KC) became stars while they were substitutes, spelling Cousy and Sharman when the tempo needed to be picked up. Traveling was called and there was only one set of rules (unlike today when superstars have their own, regulars another, etc.).
Joe Fulks, who led the NBA in scoring during it's first officially recognized season, popularized the jump shot before Sharman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Fulks
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,673
OK, but how we're in his fourth season and he still wasn't able to push a team---now one with Horace Grant and Scottie Pippen (granted, very young verisons) as well as non-bad vets Oakley/Vincent/Corzine--to as many wins as this year's Celtics team. Progress, but still you have to acknowledge the lack of team success is a big negative on the ledger here given that we're describing him as the best player of all time.

Compare that team success to Bird (60 wins as a rookie), Magic (60 wins and a title as a 20 year old rookie, albeit as second-best guy on team), Lebron (50 wins at age 21), Duncan, Kareem, etc.

It's a real negative relative to the 'competition'. We often think of later-career Jordan who was, without question, a spectacular all around player and winner...I think we need to decide if we're measuring 'peak' or 'overall career' and if it is the latter, this is all a big question for Jordan. If it's peak...well, this is all pretty irrelevant.
In Jordan's third season he averaged 37-5-5 with 3 steals and shot 48 percent from the field and played 40 mpg. What exactly more was he supposed to do to get his team over the hump? In his fourth season he was good for 35-5-6 with 3.2 steals and shot 53 percent from the field. In what world is that not part of his peak?
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
The Jordan detractors aren't seeing how perception frames the argument and re-calibrates the memory. For many of you he just succeeded the '80s glory years of Magic and Bird, whereas others see him as the conqueror of that era, riding off on a decade of dominance in which he had no peers or equals. That sort of mythologizing is hard to break and it's why it'll be hard for Lebron or any future player to be placed at his level. He essentially made himself Babe Ruth.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,670
This is a little unfair to Jordan. Jordan was 21 when he came into the league, while Bird was 23, so he was not as developed as a player yet. And Jordan missed most of his second season with a broken foot, he only played in 18 games and only started 7 (he was on a minutes restriction when he first came back). In 86-87, Jordan's age-23 season (so comparable to Bird's rookie year), Jordan averaged 37 ppg and the team finished 40-42 (their second and third best players were Oakley and Paxson).
In 1986 there was an article about Bird in SI saying he might be the greatest player ever. Elsewhere in the same issue Bird was quoted saying Jordan was the best player.

By now I've heard so many players called "the best ever" I don't take it all that seriously. I mean, for about two days last year I heard several media members talk about Steph Curry as maybe the best ever.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,192
I don't know, it's like judging a pitcher or QB by wins or Bobby Orr by his plus minus. You're talking about players on great teams with great teammates.
Certainly no question they need teammates, and I also agree it is not purely about team success. However, I think it is well-documented analytically that the impact on team success of the best NBA players is much greater than anywhere else, so it is much more true in the NBA that we want to see how the player is doing on that....even while acknowledging that they still need teammates and are well short of complete control.

To take your examples, an NBA star plays 40 minutes a game and can impact a very significant amount of play at both ends. The best players regularly impact a huge portion of their teams offense, both directly (through scoring and passing) and indirectly (via double-teams, defensive schemes to take away their strengths, shading, and even impacting who is on the court), and at the elite level they have a defensive impact as well.

This impact is greater than a QB (who depends on teammates on offense and has almost no impact on the defense---since they can, through scoring, change playcalling some) or a pitcher (who generally needs defense and does nothing on the offensive side, plus only plays every fourth or fifth game even in the playoffs)
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,192
In Jordan's third season he averaged 37-5-5 with 3 steals and shot 48 percent from the field and played 40 mpg. What exactly more was he supposed to do to get his team over the hump? In his fourth season he was good for 35-5-6 with 3.2 steals and shot 53 percent from the field. In what world is that not part of his peak?
I think you're mixing two things.

In terms of Jordan's statistical 'peak' I agree that is within it. But in terms of team success, it was not---and I think the delta there is because he became a more complete teammate later on. There's plenty of contemporaneous commentary to this effect, and one just has to decide if that is media spin or true.

There is no question he was, very early in his career, a dominant player. As I said upthread, there's a very strong case that he's the greatest player ever. And, I think his teams taking longer to be great is an interesting aspect to that argument which I think hurts him relative to others in that discussion. As several of us have noted in various threads that touch this topic, it's really hard to compare eras and to compare players who do different things and I recognize some folks put zero weight on how his team did and look at his stats, which is farther than I'd be comfortable going, but an easy way to do a shorthand comparison between players. There's no perfect (or even clearly great) way to do this comparison, so I won't pretend I have the answer...
 

m0ckduck

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
1,714
Another way of framing the question: pick one player to build around, when you have no idea who the other players on the team will be (but only know that they will be players from the same era). In that context, I'd take Jordan first, LeBron second and likely Russell third (although Kareem would get a long look).

On the other hand, I can't see a thread about Russell go by without mention of my favorite all-time big game box score:

Game 7, 1962 Finals
53 min played. 8-18 FG. 14-17 FT. 30 points. 40 rebounds. 4 assists.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,673
I think you're mixing two things.

In terms of Jordan's statistical 'peak' I agree that is within it. But in terms of team success, it was not---and I think the delta there is because he became a more complete teammate later on. There's plenty of contemporaneous commentary to this effect, and one just has to decide if that is media spin or true.

There is no question he was, very early in his career, a dominant player. As I said upthread, there's a very strong case that he's the greatest player ever. And, I think his teams taking longer to be great is an interesting aspect to that argument which I think hurts him relative to others in that discussion. As several of us have noted in various threads that touch this topic, it's really hard to compare eras and to compare players who do different things and I recognize some folks put zero weight on how his team did and look at his stats, which is farther than I'd be comfortable going, but an easy way to do a shorthand comparison between players. There's no perfect (or even clearly great) way to do this comparison, so I won't pretend I have the answer...
So what could have Jordan done during season's three and four to make his teams more competitive? I think you are overrating his teammates, pre-1989 he was saddled with one of the worst supporting casts of any top-15 player ever. Comparing those teams to the Celtics and Lakers with Bird and Magic is ridiculous, those teams acquired hall of fame players like peppermints.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,957
Saskatoon Canada
This thread title is correct. Russell is under rated because even a thread about him ends up with about Jordan.

Russell retired one year before Kareem, Rick Barry, Connie Hawkins, Elvin Hayes were all stars. It is not like guys he dominated never saw the same floor as Magic, Dr. J., Bird.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
Why is Russell criminally underrated? Most people think he's one of the very best players ever to play basketball. How can anyone with that kind of lofty standing be "criminally underrated"? I mean, he was incredible, an all-time great. But....pretty much everyone actually THINKS he was incredible, and an all-time great. So what's the beef?
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
Why is Russell criminally underrated? Most people think he's one of the very best players ever to play basketball. How can anyone with that kind of lofty standing be "criminally underrated"? I mean, he was incredible, an all-time great. But....pretty much everyone actually THINKS he was incredible, and an all-time great. So what's the beef?
I think if you polled people only under the age of 35 you'd be surprised how few mention Russell as one of the all-time greats. In fact, I think unless the person is one who appreciates the history of the game or is from New England you're unlikely to hear his name at all. He is very underrated to the wider audience of casual fans.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
I think if you polled people only under the age of 35 you'd be surprised how few mention Russell as one of the all-time greats. In fact, I think unless the person is one who appreciates the history of the game or is from New England you're unlikely to hear his name at all. He is very underrated to the wider audience of casual fans.
Well that's true for younger audiences always. How many of them would think Jerry West or Elgin Baylor were great players? Most have never heard of those guys. So that's not surprising. It's always going to be the case.

If you polled an audience of 35-and-younger people who are casual NBA fans or better, I bet their all-time top 5 would be: Jordan, Magic, LeBron, Kobe, and maybe Duncan or Shaq. Something like that. You wouldn't hear Russell or Wilt or Kareem or West
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
February 27, 1959 -- Minneapolis Lakers 139 at Celtics 173 and Russell didn't even play. Heard the score on the midnight news on the radio and said, "Did I hear that Right?" Stayed up for the 1 a.m. news. 173 points in a regulation game wasn't tied until 1990. Heinsohn-43, Cousy-32, Sharman-21, Ramsey-20.