The Real and Undisputed GOAT

[PhilBlackson]

Yeah, Russell only had to play against bums like Willis Reed, Nate Thurmond, and Jerry West.

Wilt averaged 50 PPG in a season considered by many the best athlete to ever wear an NBA uniform. Isn't he an impact player like MJ and LeBron? Yet, he went 1-7 against Russell in the playoffs.

MJ is 2-1 in game 7s. LeBron is 6-2. Russell is 10-0.

The only impact Bill cared about was winning. MJ and LBJ are in love with themselves and their stats. Bill loved only winning and did it better than anyone else.

Bill was the GOAT teammate which contributes to his being the GOAT. MJ and LBJ have never been considered GOAT teammates.

Are you really pretending the league as a whole was even remotely as skilled as today?! You can’t be serious.

Of course, the league today is more skilled than it was compared to past decades. The influx of international talent has pushed the skill level up even further. But that applies to all eras.

So, we can never crown anyone GOAT until the skill and talent level in the league stagnates? That's not a position that anyone who participates in GOAT debates holds because it's inconsistent.

KAJ, MJ, and LBJ played against the talent that was around at that time. So did Russell.

If winning 11 rings was so easy, then someone else from eras past should have done it. Winning a ring was so easy that HOF'ers like Wilt won only 2 and Jerry West only won 1.

You can try & twist things as much as you want but it’s impossible to herald someone as the best ever in easily the least skilled version of the league who also wasn’t all that skilled themselves in relation to the other players they’re being compared against, with the most stacked roster of all time in relation to their competition ie/ the most HOFs on a single team ever, with the least amount of competition to play against. You can tap dance around that however you want but no one is buying what you’re selling.

[KayDee35]

Are you really pretending the league as a whole was even remotely as skilled as today?! You can’t be serious.

Of course, the league today is more skilled than it was compared to past decades. The influx of international talent has pushed the skill level up even further. But that applies to all eras.

So, we can never crown anyone GOAT until the skill and talent level in the league stagnates? That's not a position that anyone who participates in GOAT debates holds because it's inconsistent.

KAJ, MJ, and LBJ played against the talent that was around at that time. So did Russell.

If winning 11 rings was so easy, then someone else from eras past should have done it. Winning a ring was so easy that HOF'ers like Wilt won only 2 and Jerry West only won 1.

You can try & twist things as much as you want but it’s impossible to herald someone as the best ever in easily the least skilled version of the league who also wasn’t all that skilled themselves in relation to the other players they’re being compared against, with the most stacked roster of all time in relation to their competition ie/ the most HOFs on a single team ever, with the least amount of competition to play against. You can tap dance around that however you want but no one is buying what you’re selling.

Did you say most stacked roster of all time??? How did this stacked roster do without Russell? Probably better than the 71% win rate of Russell or at least somewhere close?

They went 10-18 without Russell.

Kids don't know their history but want to act like they know what they're talking about. This ain't TIkTok.

[SNPA]

I’m here for the Russell defense.

Go on OP, go on.

[EmpireFalls]

Are you really pretending the league as a whole was even remotely as skilled as today?! You can’t be serious.

Of course, the league today is more skilled than it was compared to past decades. The influx of international talent has pushed the skill level up even further. But that applies to all eras.

So, we can never crown anyone GOAT until the skill and talent level in the league stagnates? That's not a position that anyone who participates in GOAT debates holds because it's inconsistent.

KAJ, MJ, and LBJ played against the talent that was around at that time. So did Russell.

If winning 11 rings was so easy, then someone else from eras past should have done it. Winning a ring was so easy that HOF'ers like Wilt won only 2 and Jerry West only won 1.

You can try & twist things as much as you want but it’s impossible to herald someone as the best ever in easily the least skilled version of the league who also wasn’t all that skilled themselves in relation to the other players they’re being compared against, with the most stacked roster of all time in relation to their competition ie/ the most HOFs on a single team ever, with the least amount of competition to play against. You can tap dance around that however you want but no one is buying what you’re selling.

The best argument against Russell is that he played the lowest level of evolved basketball of any GOAT candidate against the lowest variety of competition. And basically his value was heavily era-specific and would be nerfed in future eras.

I’m not sure that’s a fair argument bc if we argued like that then the best guys in 2050 will likely crap all over on MJ LeBron and them.

[BarbaGrizz]

People need to stop promoting players from these milkmen eras. Even the 80s are a modern milkmen era, were the overall level was just terrible. Just watch some playoff game from the 80s, its unwatchable, terrible basketball. Modern players from the recent generations are miles better at absolutely everything compared to these old geezers. New is always better, dont forget that.

What a stupid take

[Mr B]

[SlimShady83]

all goats must present their rings before entering the club, and once in they all bow to russell. rings are all they care about because rings are what gets them in.

the problem is twofold.....basketball has a short memory for history and it worships individual stats

LOL they should put all the goats In a poker match have them all gamble with their rings... Russell might have more, but I bet Jordan would win and take them all

[KayDee35]

all goats must present their rings before entering the club, and once in they all bow to russell. rings are all they care about because rings are what gets them in.

the problem is twofold.....basketball has a short memory for history and it worships individual stats

LOL they should put all the goats In a poker match have them all gamble with their rings... Russell might have more, but I bet Jordan would win and take them all

This is a prime example of how how MJ fans bought the media hype and believe that he's a god who's great at everything.

MJ was great at 1 thing: Playing Basketball. He was terrible at everything else. He was an awful at being a GM, golfer, gambler, baseball player, award recipient, and most everything.

And even his basketball play resulted in only 6 rings in 15 seasons? That's 9 years where he was a bum.

I'll take the guy who won 11 rings in 13 years.

[DOT]

Again, any excuse to post this series:

Watch on YouTube

[hauntedcomputer]

I consider the Russell Celtics to be two entirely separate teams, i.e. the Russell Dynasty rather than the Celtics Dynasty.

I have no trouble with Russell as the GOAT, or Jordan, especially when including amateur accomplishments (which moves KAJ right up there, too.) Winning is the object of the game, no matter the era, and none did it better.

And many so-called "fans of the game" (i.e., simpletons who go to "plumber and accountant" arguments) aren't even aware that professional basketball had already been around for a half a century before Russell showed up. Basketball did exist before Twitter and ESPN and RealGM.

[MaxZaslofskyJr]

Is my 10 dollar bill in a wallet with four 5 s "greater" than your 20 dollar bill in a wallet with four 1 s?
a simple analogy to illustrate the dimwitted argument of counting rings!

[KayDee35]

Bill Russell was way before my time, but I consider myself a student of the game, know about his storied career and have seen highlights. Respect for making this thread because I think his game and achievements are criminally underrated. He was a true swiss army knife. People throw that word around but Russell could legit do it all. Score, board, steal, block, defend, shoot, dunk, pass. Everything. At an elite level. I don't get why he's rarely put in top 5's aside from the fact that most people aren't familiar enough with him.

You hit the nail on the head that Russell could not only do it all but did whatever his team needed to get the win.

While there are divergent opinions on who the GOAT might be, Russell has the best case for Greatest Teammate of All Time (GTOAT - like we need more acronyms ).

His teammates played better with him on the floor and his team won way more when he was on the floor.

[KayDee35]

Is my 10 dollar bill in a wallet with four 5 is "greater" than your 20 dollar bill in a wallet with four 1 s?
a simple analogy to illustrate the dimwitted argument of counting rings!

I must be dimwitted because I do not understand your question

Could you rephrase your question or describe it as an equation or something like that so that I can better understand your point? Thanks.

[MaxZaslofskyJr]

Is my 10 dollar bill in a wallet with four 5 s "greater" than your 20 dollar bill in a wallet with four 1 s?
a simple analogy to illustrate the dimwitted argument of counting rings!

I must be dimwitted because I do not understand your question

Could you rephrase your question or describe it as an equation or something like that so that I can better understand your point? Thanks.

I corrected a typo.. try again. sorry.

[Gregoire]

Jordan

gap

LeBron
Kareem
Wilt
Shaq

Russel

[KayDee35]

Is my 10 dollar bill in a wallet with four 5 s "greater" than your 20 dollar bill in a wallet with four 1 s?
a simple analogy to illustrate the dimwitted argument of counting rings!

I must be dimwitted because I do not understand your question

Could you rephrase your question or describe it as an equation or something like that so that I can better understand your point? Thanks.

I corrected a typo.. try again. sorry.

NBA players are not static numbers. Their value changes depending on their role, their teammates, and the system they find themselves in. You can't simply add players up.

When Bill Russell played with $1 players, they turned into $5 players because of his leadership, unselfishness, bbiq, etc. Among Russell's teammates, only Cousy, Sam Jones, and Havlicek would be in the HoF if they had no rings. The Celtics had an average of 3 all-stars per season when the league average was 2.5, which is not much of an advantage and certainly doesn't align with the "stacked teams" narrative that some people have been trying to push.

The point of the money in your wallet or mine is to the buy the ultimate prize each year. And Russell found a way, year after year, to make sure that his team ended up with the title.

Those who think counting stats are all that matters will say that Wilt outplayed Russell in their head-to-head matchups. Wilt's teams also averaged 3 all-stars per season. And in half of the 8 playoff series, Wilt's teams were the higher seed. Yet, Russell went 7-1 in those series against Wilt.

Not because his teams were more stacked but because he found a way to significantly reduce Wilt's impact on the outcome of the game.

Wilt was not a $20 playing with four $1s, even though you'll hear some try to throw his teammates and coaches under the bus. His teams had just as much talent as Russell's. Yet the $20 came up short time and again against the $10. Maybe, there's a lot more to winning that simply stats.

[Mr B]

[MaxZaslofskyJr]

I must be dimwitted because I do not understand your question

Could you rephrase your question or describe it as an equation or something like that so that I can better understand your point? Thanks.

I corrected a typo.. try again. sorry.

NBA players are not static numbers. Their value changes depending on their role, their teammates, and the system they find themselves in. You can't simply add players up.

When Bill Russell played with $1 players, they turned into $5 players because of his leadership, unselfishness, bbiq, etc. Among Russell's teammates, only Cousy, Sam Jones, and Havlicek would be in the HoF if they had no rings. The Celtics had an average of 3 all-stars per season when the league average was 2.5, which is not much of an advantage and certainly doesn't align with the "stacked teams" narrative that some people have been trying to push.

The point of the money in your wallet or mine is to the buy the ultimate prize each year. And Russell found a way, year after year, to make sure that his team ended up with the title.

Those who think counting stats are all that matters will say that Wilt outplayed Russell in their head-to-head matchups. Wilt's teams also averaged 3 all-stars per season. And in half of the 8 playoff series, Wilt's teams were the higher seed. Yet, Russell went 7-1 in those series against Wilt.

Not because his teams were more stacked but because he found a way to significantly reduce Wilt's impact on the outcome of the game.

Wilt was not a $20 playing with four $1s, even though you'll hear some try to throw his teammates and coaches under the bus. His teams had just as much talent as Russell's. Yet the $20 came up short time and again against the $10. Maybe, there's a lot more to winning that simply stats.

The point being that you can't automatically claim the best of a group that is better than another group is automatically
better than the best of a group that is worse. It's an invalid, falacious argurment. Period.

It is a TEAM game and yet, illogically people want to divvy out TEAM success to an individual. This is not only true for Russell, Chamberlain... it's true for every player. Maybe X made his team better. Maybe X had players who made him better. How many times have you heard "he did what he had to do for his team"? Have you ever not wondered what if "what he had to do" was just a little bit more than he could have handled? you want to claim nothing is static but don't seem to realize these are not controlled experiments where you can have each player play with the same teammates.

Look, if you want to say, X is the greatest (be it be Russell or not), that's fine. But, you need to base it upon something else than how OTHER people also did. That argument is just a big circle J..k.

"Maybe, there's a lot more to winning that simply stats" .. how many games a team wins IS a stat just not an individual one like some like to make it.

[KayDee35]

The point being that you can't automatically claim the best of a group that is better than another group is automatically
better than the best of a group that is worse. It's an invalid, falacious argurment. Period.

I agree. That's not my argument. My point is that individual performances that contribute more to winning don't always show up in stats and even if they do, they are often undervalued. Especially when we're talking about elevating your teammates.

Take Curry, for example. He's much more than a glorified Ray Allen. He's the key to the offensive system that GS runs. We even had to come up with a term like 'gravity' to account for Curry's impact that is not captured by stats.

It is a TEAM game and yet, illogically people want to divvy out TEAM success to an individual. This is not only true for Russell, Chamberlain... it's true for every player.

I agree again. It is a team game. And what do teams do? They win or lose. The Celtics won far more with Russell than without him. That doesn't mean Russell carried the team, just that his play made the team significantly better.

you want to claim nothing is static but don't seem to realize these are not controlled experiments where you can have each player play with the same teammates.

In the spirit of controlled experiments, the Bulls won 55 games the season after MJ retires the first time. The Celtics went 10-18 when Russell was out. When Russell was playing they won about 72% of their games. These controlled experiments tell us about the enormity of Russell's impact.

Look, if you want to say, X is the greatest (be it be Russell or not), that's fine. But, you need to base it upon something else than how OTHER people also did. That argument is just a big circle J..k.

I'm basing it on how the TEAM did when Russell played and when he did not. Is that not a reasonable analysis?