David Thorpe Calls Bill Russell Overrated on ESPN Chat

[Hoops]

I think it has been well established on this blog that Thorpe gives very little time and thought into his chats and basically "mails them in". I know I have complained about poor analysis on his part in the context of his chats. He is a decent talent scout, but he has a history of being anti-Celtics.

Yup. He's notorious for his one liners in chats. I don't even know what's the point of him having a chat session on Espn. Who really cares about him or what he has to say?

I don't know why I even bother trying to explain, but here I go anyway. I guess you either understand him or you don't. But, in my opinion, his chats are the most interesting and informative chats out there. John Hollinger is perhaps the only one who is even close to Thorpe. But again, I'm sure this response won't change your mind - not that I care.

[Hoops]

Hoops is probably right. Russell would not be picked first in that open gym, just as he was not picked first in his own class coming out of college. But Hoops would learn the hard way, as everyone else did, that his team would lose to Russell's team.

That's a clever and cute line. And you have the history books on your side, so I don't really have much of a comeback. If only there were a way to make this hypothetical a reality - because I sincerely believe that a lot of Russell worshipers would be disappointed to watch that open gym game and find that Russell simply wasn't the best player on the court.

[nickagneta]

While I hate defending David Thorpe because defending idiots just isn't what I like to do, I think I understand what he means.

Russell by many is considered the greatest winner in the history of professional sports. Many nowadays get that confused with greatest player ever and hence Russell might get more credit for being a great player than he deserves. Russell is definitely one of the 5-6 best players ever. But not the best.

I think Thorpe just chose the wrong time to try to express that because answering a question as to the most over rated player ever is definitely not the time to discuss the concept of Russell's greatness as a winner versus that of his greatness as a player.

Even at 43, I'm still too young to have seen Russell play in person, but from players I have seen play and/or people that I respect greatly(Havlicek, Heinsohn, Auerbach, Chamberlain, Jabbar...), Russell could have been so much more than what he was but chose to play the game he did because he was such a team player. Many agree that he could have been every bit as good a scorer as any in league history. He just thought, and agreed with Auerbach, that his skills were best used defensively for the team to succeed.

So in many ways Russell is both over and under appreciated as a player. Over because some judge his personal talent based on his team success but under because he decided not to be the dominant offensive player that is so endearing to most basketball fans.

I happen to think that when it counted, Russell had the biggest heart and played the best defense in league history. We are, after all, steeped in historical stats and facts regarding the best competition the second greatest player and maybe greatest basketball talent ever, a 7-2 behemoth named Wilt, ever had was from a skinny 6-9 guy.

THAT'S 5 INCHES PEOPLE.

Wilt had his greatest challenge against a guy he outweighed by 60 pounds and was 5 inches taller than. That would be unheard of in today's NBA. Think about it.

That's the equivalent of:

Dwight Howard vs. Manu Ginobili
Tim Duncan vs. Bruce Bowen
or
LeBron James vs. Chauncey Billups

Now think about the fact that Russell routinely put up 20/20 and some 20/30 and 20/40(I think, didn't check) games against Chamberlain.

[xmuscularghandix]

Hoops is probably right. Russell would not be picked first in that open gym, just as he was not picked first in his own class coming out of college. But Hoops would learn the hard way, as everyone else did, that his team would lose to Russell's team.

That's a clever and cute line. And you have the history books on your side, so I don't really have much of a comeback. If only there were a way to make this hypothetical a reality - because I sincerely believe that a lot of Russell worshipers would be disappointed to watch that open gym game and find that Russell simply wasn't the best player on the court.

he might not be the best on the court, but if any of the other players are going to be they better take outside shots and not count on second chance buckets.

[mainevent]

Bill Russel was the most dominant player in NBA history. He's probably the most dominant figure in sports History. With that said he's definitely being overrated when people say he was the best to play the game.

Huh?

[JR Giddens]

Bill Russel was the most dominant player in NBA history. He's probably the most dominant figure in sports History. With that said he's definitely being overrated when people say he was the best to play the game.

Huh?

Bill Russel played in the 60s and mostly played against 6'5 guys or shorter at his position other than Wilt. Put Bill Russel in the NBA during the 90s and he's a good player but he won't shine as the elite. He's prolly an all-star but not dominant. It's hard to tell but this is my opinion. I think the 2008 Clippers could beat any 70s nba team.

[gustusias]

I guess Russ is overrated when he wins 11 0f 13 championships, 3 staight at the collegiate level as well, and never lost a game seven in his life. I guess he is overrated. The very idea is nuts and yes, I would pick him first in any gym of players. His record as player says why. His teams won.

Look, I saw his very first NBA game. I must have seen him play live a few hundred times at least never mind radio or TV. He literally dominated the backboard. His interior defense was so tough. Nobody recorded blocks in those days and his were truly very many per game. Like he says, but it is true, he sacrificed a great deal of his game for the benefit of the whole, i.e. obtaining the win thru a team game. I would even say that thru him was discovered the most optimum formuls to success at the game, team ball and defense. Everytime I watch today's Celtics I feel so good. They are beautiful in their team execution of defense and ball movement. This is truly Celtics' basketball and  Bill Russell's hallmark as a player, his God given gift.

No, Larry Bird was not even close to Russell. Magic? Jordan? If these guys were so great, then why didn't they win all those championships. The fact is they didn't and many of their teams were far better than Russ's. So Russ is overrated, huh?  

[footey]

Hoops, et. al.you guys are drifting from my premise.  No one who defends Russell as the greatest player ever (led proudly by me, who had the privilege of actually seeing him play) is disputing individual statistical supremacy. One need only look at Russ' contemporary, Wilt, who far exceeded Russ in every statistical category. The real point is this:  Playing this game is about who wins, not which guy scores the most points, makes the coolest passes or the most spectacular blocks (particularly apropos as Russ made a point of not swatting it into the stands, but toward a team-mate to start a break). Russell wasn't just some lucky bench guy like Horry who, while a contributor, was not the main guy in teh 5 championships he won. Russell, I would argue, was the most valuable player in every single of the 11 championship runs.  He won 11 out of 13. 

Count 'em, 11, fellas.  In 13 years.  MVP of each of those teams.  We would not have won a single one if he was not on our team, I submit. 

Instead of celebrating 17, we would have just celebrated number 6. That is who Bill Russell was.

I am not even here to make the point that Russell was the greatest player ever, although based upon the fact that he was the most valuable player on the only real dynasty in basketball, ever, I really think he is. I grant that their are legitimate arguments for saying that Jordan was the greatest, since he not only won six, but was so dominant in each win.

Frankly, I find it blasphemous that the word "over-rated" could be used in the same sentence with Bill Russell.  I have read Thorpe, and while I recognize that being flippant is his MO, that does not excuse him calling Russell over-rated. 

For those of you who believe Bill Russell was over-rated, I would suggest that you under-rate the most important element of the game: Winning.  Thorpe also let the charges during last year's playoffs stating that the Lakers (along with teh Cavs and Pistons) were superior to the Celtics, so his opinion and 2 bucks will get me a ride on the subway.

[gustusias]

Most of those guys were 6 foot 5 inches. Who wrote that nonsense!? There were many tall giants in those years. It is just that none of them could play against Russ. He literally choked these guys defensively. They were nothing by the time he got thru with them. Anyways, I have a difficult time discussing anything with children who feel that the world began after Michael Jordan. They have no idea how freakin' good he was, or even Jerry West, Baylor, Pettit, Oscar Robertson, Maurice Stokes, Bob Cousy,Wilt,Nate Thurmond, etc... I just cannot debate when the other side never witnessed, Whar else can I say.

 However, and I believe this to be true, that Russell ingrained something inside me for life. I thank him, Red, and all those guys every day of my life. Being a Celtics fan is really wonderful. I am blessed ......... Now if this Thorpe guy doesn't feel what I feel every waking day because of Bill Russell, then he is unlucky, lost, and just ignorant of what one player can do for a team. Bill Russell was that good and I was that fortunate to have been born in Boston, a kid during his playing days.  

[ACF]

Who cares what David Thorpe says?

Look at the picture below and see if  it
says "overrated". If it does, oh well...



footey and gustusias, you must feel lucky
to think back on all the times you watched
Bill play. I know I would! A TP for you both
for the good posts and the love for Bill.

[LarBrd33]

This isn't the first time a thread has been started on here about a David Thorpe chat response.  He's sorta developed a reputation as being anti-Celtic.  And each time it's a very short response with no explanation backing it up.   I dunno... I've seen enough of these Thorpe threads to not outright dismiss someone who claims he's got a problem with the Celts 

[td450]

Russell would be the best athlete in the NBA today. He was a national level high jumper in track who once high jumped 6'9 1/4 (pre-Fosbury). Cousy has said he was easily the fastest guy on the team. He had the lateral quickness of a point guard. He would make someone like Josh Smith look like Scal. Other than LeBron, there is no one in the NBA even close.

If I remember correctly, in one of the two years that Russell failed to win a title, he was injured for the playoffs.

He was eligible for varsity for 3 seasons in college and won 2 national titles for a school that never came close ever again.

Some claim that a smaller league made it easier. The opposite was true, as talent was concentrated. There was some phenomenal talent back then. In today's NBA, only 5-6 teams have any chance at all. The rest are there to fill out the schedule. The Celtics were not considered favorites on a number of the championship runs. What this guy did was unmatched in team sports history.

[Celtics17]

"You hear the word athleticism so much today that you would think the players of the past coulndt run or jump" those words, from a Bob Ryan article, keep echoing through my head. If I am not mistaken, it seems that I read that Bill Russel was the 5th best high jumper in the world at one time in his career. I guess maybe today Shaq would be 4th best, Duncan 3rd best, and probably Yao might  be the best-Ha. It is kind of funny how people forget the past but really in this computer age many of the respondents on here never witnessed much of the past. When I graduated high school I had close to a 40 inch vertical jump, long jumped the same thing that both Wilt and MJ jumped, 22 feet and could bench press almost twice my body weight. I am sure that those stats would also be "overrated" in todays "athletic" world.

[ManUp]

Bill Russel was the most dominant player in NBA history. He's probably the most dominant figure in sports History. With that said he's definitely being overrated when people say he was the best to play the game.

Huh?

Bill Russel played in the 60s and mostly played against 6'5 guys or shorter at his position other than Wilt. Put Bill Russel in the NBA during the 90s and he's a good player but he won't shine as the elite. He's prolly an all-star but not dominant. It's hard to tell but this is my opinion. I think the 2008 Clippers could beat any 70s nba team.

I'm not sure i'd go that far with the Clippers and all, but that's part of my reasoning. I consider him Great because of the utter domination of his peers. The same reason people consider Jordan so great. However, If I was going to start a team and could pick any player from the all-time team I probably wouldn't pick Russel first.

[screwedupmaniac]

BLASPHEMY!  david thorpe needs to shut his lakers-butt-kissing mouth.