ESPN says Bill Russell is the 7th greatest player in NBA history

[BballTim]

...and Wilt was arguably the single most dominant player in NBA history. 

yet Russell dominated him year after year after year after year after year after year...

Russell won in high school, won in college, and has the most NBA rings ever.  There is no argument, Bill is without doubt the most dominant basketball player of all time.

Bill didn't dominate Wilt at all.  In fact, Wilt won the head to head virtually every time they met.  The Celtics on the other hand is a different story.

One of the reasons Bill Russell is so great is BECAUSE he had to go through Wilt so many times to win it all. 

And he did. 

9 times out of 10 through the 60s when each was at their athletic peak.

Wilt didn't get his second ring until Bill retired.  Russell absolutely dominated him, head to head.  Sure maybe Wilt could score, but Bill was the complete player, getting the most of his teammates, blocking shots and playing for the W.

You are saying Russell dominated Wilt constantly. 

He didn't.

Russel's TEAM dominated Wilt's TEAM.

You are falling in to the exact same trap - confusing team achievements/performance with individual achievements/performance.

This list isn't ranking the greatest teams in history, it's ranking the greatest players in history.

You can NEVER use team success to gauge how good a player was, because it is completely illogical.  Let me explain why.

What would have happened if the two players switched teams, Wilt was the one on those Celtics teams.  Would Russell still have won all those titles, or would Wilt have won them?

If you say Russell would have won them, then how do you know this? 

Answer is, you don't.  There is no possible way for you to say what the result would have been.  You would be attempting to say what happens in a reality that never existed - your answer would be based on nothing hypothetical, conjecture and subjective opinion.   

This is why you cannot say that Russell was better than Wilt based on the TEAM's results.  Because you aren't comparing the teams, you're comparing the players.

It's the same reason why you cannot say Tim Duncan was a better player than Kevin Garnett because he has more rings.  Again - you're comparing team success, not player success.

The only way you can compare one player to another is their INDIVIDUAL achievements. 

Wilt averaged 30 points (54% FG, 51% FT), 23 rebounds and 5 assists for his career and was a 15 time All-Star.  He still holds a record for the highest scoring average (50.4 PPG) and rebound average (27.2 RPG) in history.  When a guy is averaging 50.4 PPG and 25.7 RPG in a single season, kinda hard to argue that is anything but absolute dominance. 

Kareem averaged 25 points (56% FG, 72% FT), 11 rebounds, 4 assists, 1 steal and 2.7 blocks over his career and was a 19 time All-Star.  He is the all time NBA leader in points scored.   

Bill Russell averaged 15 points (44% FG, 56% FT), 22.5 rebounds and 4 assists over his career and was a 12 time All-Star.

Now looking at these guys for their personal achievements alone, it's perfectly understandable why somebody might rank Kareem and Wilt over Russell.  I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that it's a fair call to make. 

These guys are probably the three greatest centers who have ever played the game, so all three of them were completely dominant - it's not like we're ranking Brendan Haywood over Hakeem Olajuwon here.

Arguing who was the best individual player out of Kareem/Wilt/Russell is like arguing who was the best out of Robinson/Olajuwon/Shaq.  Those guys were pretty much equally dominant, so how can you possibly separate them without resorting to subjective arguments and personal bias?

Again, we are talking about ranking the greatest players in history, not the ones who led the best teams. Being the best player on the most dominant team does not necessarily mean that you are the most dominant player, period.  The 2nd and 3rd most dominant players on your team might be FAR more dominant than the 2nd and 3rd most dominant players on the other team, and that may be what makes your team so much more dominant.

You are completely ignoring the most important part of this debate.

As an INDIVIDUAL, Russell had more impact on his TEAM'S defense than any other player in NBA history.

How can you ignore the half of the game that is where Russell made his name?

  If they can't measure it with stats it doesn't matter.

[Big333223]

...and Wilt was arguably the single most dominant player in NBA history. 

yet Russell dominated him year after year after year after year after year after year...

Russell won in high school, won in college, and has the most NBA rings ever.  There is no argument, Bill is without doubt the most dominant basketball player of all time.

Bill didn't dominate Wilt at all.  In fact, Wilt won the head to head virtually every time they met.  The Celtics on the other hand is a different story.

One of the reasons Bill Russell is so great is BECAUSE he had to go through Wilt so many times to win it all. 

And he did. 

9 times out of 10 through the 60s when each was at their athletic peak.

Wilt didn't get his second ring until Bill retired.  Russell absolutely dominated him, head to head.  Sure maybe Wilt could score, but Bill was the complete player, getting the most of his teammates, blocking shots and playing for the W.

You are saying Russell dominated Wilt constantly. 

He didn't.

Russel's TEAM dominated Wilt's TEAM.

You are falling in to the exact same trap - confusing team achievements/performance with individual achievements/performance.

This list isn't ranking the greatest teams in history, it's ranking the greatest players in history.

You can NEVER use team success to gauge how good a player was, because it is completely illogical.  Let me explain why.

What would have happened if the two players switched teams, Wilt was the one on those Celtics teams.  Would Russell still have won all those titles, or would Wilt have won them?

If you say Russell would have won them, then how do you know this? 

Answer is, you don't.  There is no possible way for you to say what the result would have been.  You would be attempting to say what happens in a reality that never existed - your answer would be based on nothing hypothetical, conjecture and subjective opinion.   

This is why you cannot say that Russell was better than Wilt based on the TEAM's results.  Because you aren't comparing the teams, you're comparing the players.

It's the same reason why you cannot say Tim Duncan was a better player than Kevin Garnett because he has more rings.  Again - you're comparing team success, not player success.

The only way you can compare one player to another is their INDIVIDUAL achievements. 

Wilt averaged 30 points (54% FG, 51% FT), 23 rebounds and 5 assists for his career and was a 15 time All-Star.  He still holds a record for the highest scoring average (50.4 PPG) and rebound average (27.2 RPG) in history.  When a guy is averaging 50.4 PPG and 25.7 RPG in a single season, kinda hard to argue that is anything but absolute dominance. 

Kareem averaged 25 points (56% FG, 72% FT), 11 rebounds, 4 assists, 1 steal and 2.7 blocks over his career and was a 19 time All-Star.  He is the all time NBA leader in points scored.   

Bill Russell averaged 15 points (44% FG, 56% FT), 22.5 rebounds and 4 assists over his career and was a 12 time All-Star.

Now looking at these guys for their personal achievements alone, it's perfectly understandable why somebody might rank Kareem and Wilt over Russell.  I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that it's a fair call to make. 

These guys are probably the three greatest centers who have ever played the game, so all three of them were completely dominant - it's not like we're ranking Brendan Haywood over Hakeem Olajuwon here.

Arguing who was the best individual player out of Kareem/Wilt/Russell is like arguing who was the best out of Robinson/Olajuwon/Shaq.  Those guys were pretty much equally dominant, so how can you possibly separate them without resorting to subjective arguments and personal bias?

Again, we are talking about ranking the greatest players in history, not the ones who led the best teams. Being the best player on the most dominant team does not necessarily mean that you are the most dominant player, period.  The 2nd and 3rd most dominant players on your team might be FAR more dominant than the 2nd and 3rd most dominant players on the other team, and that may be what makes your team so much more dominant.

You are completely ignoring the most important part of this debate.

As an INDIVIDUAL, Russell had more impact on his TEAM'S defense than any other player in NBA history.

How can you ignore the half of the game that is where Russell made his name?

  If they can't measure it with stats it doesn't matter.

TP

[Celtics4ever]

ESPN is a joke, and have been for a while.

[crimson_stallion]

...and Wilt was arguably the single most dominant player in NBA history. 

yet Russell dominated him year after year after year after year after year after year...

Russell won in high school, won in college, and has the most NBA rings ever.  There is no argument, Bill is without doubt the most dominant basketball player of all time.

Bill didn't dominate Wilt at all.  In fact, Wilt won the head to head virtually every time they met.  The Celtics on the other hand is a different story.

One of the reasons Bill Russell is so great is BECAUSE he had to go through Wilt so many times to win it all. 

And he did. 

9 times out of 10 through the 60s when each was at their athletic peak.

Wilt didn't get his second ring until Bill retired.  Russell absolutely dominated him, head to head.  Sure maybe Wilt could score, but Bill was the complete player, getting the most of his teammates, blocking shots and playing for the W.

You are saying Russell dominated Wilt constantly. 

He didn't.

Russel's TEAM dominated Wilt's TEAM.

You are falling in to the exact same trap - confusing team achievements/performance with individual achievements/performance.

This list isn't ranking the greatest teams in history, it's ranking the greatest players in history.

You can NEVER use team success to gauge how good a player was, because it is completely illogical.  Let me explain why.

What would have happened if the two players switched teams, Wilt was the one on those Celtics teams.  Would Russell still have won all those titles, or would Wilt have won them?

If you say Russell would have won them, then how do you know this? 

Answer is, you don't.  There is no possible way for you to say what the result would have been.  You would be attempting to say what happens in a reality that never existed - your answer would be based on nothing hypothetical, conjecture and subjective opinion.   

This is why you cannot say that Russell was better than Wilt based on the TEAM's results.  Because you aren't comparing the teams, you're comparing the players.

It's the same reason why you cannot say Tim Duncan was a better player than Kevin Garnett because he has more rings.  Again - you're comparing team success, not player success.

The only way you can compare one player to another is their INDIVIDUAL achievements. 

Wilt averaged 30 points (54% FG, 51% FT), 23 rebounds and 5 assists for his career and was a 15 time All-Star.  He still holds a record for the highest scoring average (50.4 PPG) and rebound average (27.2 RPG) in history.  When a guy is averaging 50.4 PPG and 25.7 RPG in a single season, kinda hard to argue that is anything but absolute dominance. 

Kareem averaged 25 points (56% FG, 72% FT), 11 rebounds, 4 assists, 1 steal and 2.7 blocks over his career and was a 19 time All-Star.  He is the all time NBA leader in points scored.   

Bill Russell averaged 15 points (44% FG, 56% FT), 22.5 rebounds and 4 assists over his career and was a 12 time All-Star.

Now looking at these guys for their personal achievements alone, it's perfectly understandable why somebody might rank Kareem and Wilt over Russell.  I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that it's a fair call to make. 

These guys are probably the three greatest centers who have ever played the game, so all three of them were completely dominant - it's not like we're ranking Brendan Haywood over Hakeem Olajuwon here.

Arguing who was the best individual player out of Kareem/Wilt/Russell is like arguing who was the best out of Robinson/Olajuwon/Shaq.  Those guys were pretty much equally dominant, so how can you possibly separate them without resorting to subjective arguments and personal bias?

Again, we are talking about ranking the greatest players in history, not the ones who led the best teams. Being the best player on the most dominant team does not necessarily mean that you are the most dominant player, period.  The 2nd and 3rd most dominant players on your team might be FAR more dominant than the 2nd and 3rd most dominant players on the other team, and that may be what makes your team so much more dominant.

You are completely ignoring the most important part of this debate.

As an INDIVIDUAL, Russell had more impact on his TEAM'S defense than any other player in NBA history.

How can you ignore the half of the game that is where Russell made his name?

No, I am not ignoring Russell's defensive impact on his team. 

The fact that I'm putting Russell (who was a FAR inferior offensively) in the discussion as being on the same level as Wilt/Kareem is almost entirely because of his dominance as a defensive player.  If he wasn't as dominant as he was defensively, he wouldn't even be in the discussion.

That said, a few points:

1) You say Russell had more impact on his teams defense then any other player in history.  That is your opinion.  Hearsay.  Conjecture.  There have been many elite defensive players in the NBA over it's 60 or 70 (or so) year history.  You have absolutely nothing concrete or objective to back that up.  I'm not saying that it isn't true (in fact I'm sure it it probably is true), I'm just saying it isn't a proven fact, but an opinion. You have the right to yours, just as others have the right to disagree.

2) Defense is only one part of the game.  Who has the right to determine as a fact that Russel's defensive impact was more impressive than Wilt's or Kareem's offensive impact?  You might argue that Russell was twice as dominant defensively as Wilt and Kareem were.  The next guy might argue that Wilt and Kareem were twice as dominant offensively as Russell was.  How do you determine which of those takes precedence?

Anyway, I think you are misinterpreting the point I'm trying to make here.  I'm not trying to argue that Russell isn't the best of those three guys.  All I'm saying is that all three of those guys were similarly great/dominant and that realistic arguments can be made for all three - you can put them in any order, and it wouldn't be unreasonable. 

Nobody can declare, as an undisputed fact, that Russell was better player than Wilt.  Or that he was better than Kareem. Nobody can make those arguments without bringing up championships, which is not a fair argument (because it's a team achievement, not individual). 

It's like arguing that the  Ford Focus ST is a better car than the Renault Megane Trophy because Ford as a company sold FAR more cars than Renault did. That's just an irrational argument, because the success of a brand doesn't tell you anything about how good one specific model is. 

In fact it's worse, because at least you can get sales figures of the Focus vs Ford as a company, and calculate how much it contributed (ditto with Renault). You can't do that with Wilt/Russell/Jabbar. 

Hell even then, it still won't tell you which is a better car - just tells you which was more popular / sold more. There is no way to really factually say which car is better - they are both good at different things, so it's ultimately always going to be an opinion and a personal preference (as with this argument here). 

[Ogaju]

Wilt could dunk a basketball from outside the free throw line.  And he did so.  In games, before it was made illegal.

Just to clarify this for folks because it's amazing, it wasn't the dunking that was illegal, it was that he was dunking his free throws.  He was a bad shooter from the line so he would just dunk them instead.  Completely insane athleticism.

this cannot be true....... is it?

[Surferdad]

Wilt could dunk a basketball from outside the free throw line.  And he did so.  In games, before it was made illegal.

Just to clarify this for folks because it's amazing, it wasn't the dunking that was illegal, it was that he was dunking his free throws.  He was a bad shooter from the line so he would just dunk them instead.  Completely insane athleticism.

this cannot be true....... is it?

Of course not.  The basket is ten feet away, horizontally!

[Moranis]

...and Wilt was arguably the single most dominant player in NBA history. 

yet Russell dominated him year after year after year after year after year after year...

Russell won in high school, won in college, and has the most NBA rings ever.  There is no argument, Bill is without doubt the most dominant basketball player of all time.

Bill didn't dominate Wilt at all.  In fact, Wilt won the head to head virtually every time they met.  The Celtics on the other hand is a different story.

One of the reasons Bill Russell is so great is BECAUSE he had to go through Wilt so many times to win it all. 

And he did. 

9 times out of 10 through the 60s when each was at their athletic peak.

Wilt didn't get his second ring until Bill retired.  Russell absolutely dominated him, head to head.  Sure maybe Wilt could score, but Bill was the complete player, getting the most of his teammates, blocking shots and playing for the W.

You are saying Russell dominated Wilt constantly. 

He didn't.

Russel's TEAM dominated Wilt's TEAM.

You are falling in to the exact same trap - confusing team achievements/performance with individual achievements/performance.

This list isn't ranking the greatest teams in history, it's ranking the greatest players in history.

You can NEVER use team success to gauge how good a player was, because it is completely illogical.  Let me explain why.

What would have happened if the two players switched teams, Wilt was the one on those Celtics teams.  Would Russell still have won all those titles, or would Wilt have won them?

If you say Russell would have won them, then how do you know this? 

Answer is, you don't.  There is no possible way for you to say what the result would have been.  You would be attempting to say what happens in a reality that never existed - your answer would be based on nothing hypothetical, conjecture and subjective opinion.   

This is why you cannot say that Russell was better than Wilt based on the TEAM's results.  Because you aren't comparing the teams, you're comparing the players.

It's the same reason why you cannot say Tim Duncan was a better player than Kevin Garnett because he has more rings.  Again - you're comparing team success, not player success.

The only way you can compare one player to another is their INDIVIDUAL achievements. 

Wilt averaged 30 points (54% FG, 51% FT), 23 rebounds and 5 assists for his career and was a 15 time All-Star.  He still holds a record for the highest scoring average (50.4 PPG) and rebound average (27.2 RPG) in history.  When a guy is averaging 50.4 PPG and 25.7 RPG in a single season, kinda hard to argue that is anything but absolute dominance. 

Kareem averaged 25 points (56% FG, 72% FT), 11 rebounds, 4 assists, 1 steal and 2.7 blocks over his career and was a 19 time All-Star.  He is the all time NBA leader in points scored.   

Bill Russell averaged 15 points (44% FG, 56% FT), 22.5 rebounds and 4 assists over his career and was a 12 time All-Star.

Now looking at these guys for their personal achievements alone, it's perfectly understandable why somebody might rank Kareem and Wilt over Russell.  I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that it's a fair call to make. 

These guys are probably the three greatest centers who have ever played the game, so all three of them were completely dominant - it's not like we're ranking Brendan Haywood over Hakeem Olajuwon here.

Arguing who was the best individual player out of Kareem/Wilt/Russell is like arguing who was the best out of Robinson/Olajuwon/Shaq.  Those guys were pretty much equally dominant, so how can you possibly separate them without resorting to subjective arguments and personal bias?

Again, we are talking about ranking the greatest players in history, not the ones who led the best teams. Being the best player on the most dominant team does not necessarily mean that you are the most dominant player, period.  The 2nd and 3rd most dominant players on your team might be FAR more dominant than the 2nd and 3rd most dominant players on the other team, and that may be what makes your team so much more dominant.

You are completely ignoring the most important part of this debate.

As an INDIVIDUAL, Russell had more impact on his TEAM'S defense than any other player in NBA history.

How can you ignore the half of the game that is where Russell made his name?

  If they can't measure it with stats it doesn't matter.

It is widely known that Wilt had more blocks than Bill.  It is also widely known that Wilt shut Bill down more than Bill shut Wilt down.  One could thus surmise that Wilt was actually a better defensive player than Bill.  I'm not suggesting that is the case, but there is actually evidence of that proposition.  What isn't up for debate is that Wilt was a significantly better offensive player than Bill.  In all aspects of offense i.e. scoring, passing, and rebounding.  It is also widely known that Bill's Celtics were much better than Wilt's Warriors, Sixers, and Lakers historically speaking.

[guava_wrench]

I think Russell, Bird, Magic, and even Jordan should be in their own level. Past their basketball abilities, their significance to furthering the game of basketball can not be measured.

"Even Jordan"?

Uh, clearly Jordan, unless you are a reactionary romanticizing the "good old days".

[wayupnorth]

...and Wilt was arguably the single most dominant player in NBA history. 

yet Russell dominated him year after year after year after year after year after year...

Russell won in high school, won in college, and has the most NBA rings ever.  There is no argument, Bill is without doubt the most dominant basketball player of all time.

Bill didn't dominate Wilt at all.  In fact, Wilt won the head to head virtually every time they met.  The Celtics on the other hand is a different story.

One of the reasons Bill Russell is so great is BECAUSE he had to go through Wilt so many times to win it all. 

And he did. 

9 times out of 10 through the 60s when each was at their athletic peak.

Wilt didn't get his second ring until Bill retired.  Russell absolutely dominated him, head to head.  Sure maybe Wilt could score, but Bill was the complete player, getting the most of his teammates, blocking shots and playing for the W.

You are saying Russell dominated Wilt constantly. 

He didn't.

Russel's TEAM dominated Wilt's TEAM.

You are falling in to the exact same trap - confusing team achievements/performance with individual achievements/performance.

This list isn't ranking the greatest teams in history, it's ranking the greatest players in history.

You can NEVER use team success to gauge how good a player was, because it is completely illogical.  Let me explain why.

What would have happened if the two players switched teams, Wilt was the one on those Celtics teams.  Would Russell still have won all those titles, or would Wilt have won them?

If you say Russell would have won them, then how do you know this? 

Answer is, you don't.  There is no possible way for you to say what the result would have been.  You would be attempting to say what happens in a reality that never existed - your answer would be based on nothing hypothetical, conjecture and subjective opinion.   

This is why you cannot say that Russell was better than Wilt based on the TEAM's results.  Because you aren't comparing the teams, you're comparing the players.

It's the same reason why you cannot say Tim Duncan was a better player than Kevin Garnett because he has more rings.  Again - you're comparing team success, not player success.

The only way you can compare one player to another is their INDIVIDUAL achievements. 

Wilt averaged 30 points (54% FG, 51% FT), 23 rebounds and 5 assists for his career and was a 15 time All-Star.  He still holds a record for the highest scoring average (50.4 PPG) and rebound average (27.2 RPG) in history.  When a guy is averaging 50.4 PPG and 25.7 RPG in a single season, kinda hard to argue that is anything but absolute dominance. 

Kareem averaged 25 points (56% FG, 72% FT), 11 rebounds, 4 assists, 1 steal and 2.7 blocks over his career and was a 19 time All-Star.  He is the all time NBA leader in points scored.   

Bill Russell averaged 15 points (44% FG, 56% FT), 22.5 rebounds and 4 assists over his career and was a 12 time All-Star.

Now looking at these guys for their personal achievements alone, it's perfectly understandable why somebody might rank Kareem and Wilt over Russell.  I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that it's a fair call to make. 

These guys are probably the three greatest centers who have ever played the game, so all three of them were completely dominant - it's not like we're ranking Brendan Haywood over Hakeem Olajuwon here.

Arguing who was the best individual player out of Kareem/Wilt/Russell is like arguing who was the best out of Robinson/Olajuwon/Shaq.  Those guys were pretty much equally dominant, so how can you possibly separate them without resorting to subjective arguments and personal bias?

Again, we are talking about ranking the greatest players in history, not the ones who led the best teams. Being the best player on the most dominant team does not necessarily mean that you are the most dominant player, period.  The 2nd and 3rd most dominant players on your team might be FAR more dominant than the 2nd and 3rd most dominant players on the other team, and that may be what makes your team so much more dominant.

You are completely ignoring the most important part of this debate.

As an INDIVIDUAL, Russell had more impact on his TEAM'S defense than any other player in NBA history.

How can you ignore the half of the game that is where Russell made his name?

  If they can't measure it with stats it doesn't matter.

Well, I suppose that certainly is one way to see things.

[wayupnorth]

...and Wilt was arguably the single most dominant player in NBA history. 

yet Russell dominated him year after year after year after year after year after year...

Russell won in high school, won in college, and has the most NBA rings ever.  There is no argument, Bill is without doubt the most dominant basketball player of all time.

Bill didn't dominate Wilt at all.  In fact, Wilt won the head to head virtually every time they met.  The Celtics on the other hand is a different story.

One of the reasons Bill Russell is so great is BECAUSE he had to go through Wilt so many times to win it all. 

And he did. 

9 times out of 10 through the 60s when each was at their athletic peak.

Wilt didn't get his second ring until Bill retired.  Russell absolutely dominated him, head to head.  Sure maybe Wilt could score, but Bill was the complete player, getting the most of his teammates, blocking shots and playing for the W.

You are saying Russell dominated Wilt constantly. 

He didn't.

Russel's TEAM dominated Wilt's TEAM.

You are falling in to the exact same trap - confusing team achievements/performance with individual achievements/performance.

This list isn't ranking the greatest teams in history, it's ranking the greatest players in history.

You can NEVER use team success to gauge how good a player was, because it is completely illogical.  Let me explain why.

What would have happened if the two players switched teams, Wilt was the one on those Celtics teams.  Would Russell still have won all those titles, or would Wilt have won them?

If you say Russell would have won them, then how do you know this? 

Answer is, you don't.  There is no possible way for you to say what the result would have been.  You would be attempting to say what happens in a reality that never existed - your answer would be based on nothing hypothetical, conjecture and subjective opinion.   

This is why you cannot say that Russell was better than Wilt based on the TEAM's results.  Because you aren't comparing the teams, you're comparing the players.

It's the same reason why you cannot say Tim Duncan was a better player than Kevin Garnett because he has more rings.  Again - you're comparing team success, not player success.

The only way you can compare one player to another is their INDIVIDUAL achievements. 

Wilt averaged 30 points (54% FG, 51% FT), 23 rebounds and 5 assists for his career and was a 15 time All-Star.  He still holds a record for the highest scoring average (50.4 PPG) and rebound average (27.2 RPG) in history.  When a guy is averaging 50.4 PPG and 25.7 RPG in a single season, kinda hard to argue that is anything but absolute dominance. 

Kareem averaged 25 points (56% FG, 72% FT), 11 rebounds, 4 assists, 1 steal and 2.7 blocks over his career and was a 19 time All-Star.  He is the all time NBA leader in points scored.   

Bill Russell averaged 15 points (44% FG, 56% FT), 22.5 rebounds and 4 assists over his career and was a 12 time All-Star.

Now looking at these guys for their personal achievements alone, it's perfectly understandable why somebody might rank Kareem and Wilt over Russell.  I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that it's a fair call to make. 

These guys are probably the three greatest centers who have ever played the game, so all three of them were completely dominant - it's not like we're ranking Brendan Haywood over Hakeem Olajuwon here.

Arguing who was the best individual player out of Kareem/Wilt/Russell is like arguing who was the best out of Robinson/Olajuwon/Shaq.  Those guys were pretty much equally dominant, so how can you possibly separate them without resorting to subjective arguments and personal bias?

Again, we are talking about ranking the greatest players in history, not the ones who led the best teams. Being the best player on the most dominant team does not necessarily mean that you are the most dominant player, period.  The 2nd and 3rd most dominant players on your team might be FAR more dominant than the 2nd and 3rd most dominant players on the other team, and that may be what makes your team so much more dominant.

You are completely ignoring the most important part of this debate.

As an INDIVIDUAL, Russell had more impact on his TEAM'S defense than any other player in NBA history.

How can you ignore the half of the game that is where Russell made his name?

No, I am not ignoring Russell's defensive impact on his team. 

The fact that I'm putting Russell (who was a FAR inferior offensively) in the discussion as being on the same level as Wilt/Kareem is almost entirely because of his dominance as a defensive player.  If he wasn't as dominant as he was defensively, he wouldn't even be in the discussion.

That said, a few points:

1) You say Russell had more impact on his teams defense then any other player in history.  That is your opinion.  Hearsay.  Conjecture.  There have been many elite defensive players in the NBA over it's 60 or 70 (or so) year history.  You have absolutely nothing concrete or objective to back that up.  I'm not saying that it isn't true (in fact I'm sure it it probably is true), I'm just saying it isn't a proven fact, but an opinion. You have the right to yours, just as others have the right to disagree.

2) Defense is only one part of the game.  Who has the right to determine as a fact that Russel's defensive impact was more impressive than Wilt's or Kareem's offensive impact?  You might argue that Russell was twice as dominant defensively as Wilt and Kareem were.  The next guy might argue that Wilt and Kareem were twice as dominant offensively as Russell was.  How do you determine which of those takes precedence?

Anyway, I think you are misinterpreting the point I'm trying to make here.  I'm not trying to argue that Russell isn't the best of those three guys.  All I'm saying is that all three of those guys were similarly great/dominant and that realistic arguments can be made for all three - you can put them in any order, and it wouldn't be unreasonable. 

Nobody can declare, as an undisputed fact, that Russell was better player than Wilt.  Or that he was better than Kareem. Nobody can make those arguments without bringing up championships, which is not a fair argument (because it's a team achievement, not individual). 

It's like arguing that the  Ford Focus ST is a better car than the Renault Megane Trophy because Ford as a company sold FAR more cars than Renault did. That's just an irrational argument, because the success of a brand doesn't tell you anything about how good one specific model is. 

In fact it's worse, because at least you can get sales figures of the Focus vs Ford as a company, and calculate how much it contributed (ditto with Renault). You can't do that with Wilt/Russell/Jabbar. 

Hell even then, it still won't tell you which is a better car - just tells you which was more popular / sold more. There is no way to really factually say which car is better - they are both good at different things, so it's ultimately always going to be an opinion and a personal preference (as with this argument here).

But if players are indeed that close in talent, stats, and general opinion, how on earth does the massive gap Bill has in rings not count for something?

Russell transcends stats.

He lead the greatest sports dynasty in American sports post WWII.

I understand what you are saying, and appreciate the eloquence you say it with.

That said, I think that when looking at their respective bodies of work, combined with what other players of the day had to say, Russell clearly should have the edge over them.

[crimson_stallion]

...and Wilt was arguably the single most dominant player in NBA history. 

yet Russell dominated him year after year after year after year after year after year...

Russell won in high school, won in college, and has the most NBA rings ever.  There is no argument, Bill is without doubt the most dominant basketball player of all time.

Bill didn't dominate Wilt at all.  In fact, Wilt won the head to head virtually every time they met.  The Celtics on the other hand is a different story.

One of the reasons Bill Russell is so great is BECAUSE he had to go through Wilt so many times to win it all. 

And he did. 

9 times out of 10 through the 60s when each was at their athletic peak.

Wilt didn't get his second ring until Bill retired.  Russell absolutely dominated him, head to head.  Sure maybe Wilt could score, but Bill was the complete player, getting the most of his teammates, blocking shots and playing for the W.

You are saying Russell dominated Wilt constantly. 

He didn't.

Russel's TEAM dominated Wilt's TEAM.

You are falling in to the exact same trap - confusing team achievements/performance with individual achievements/performance.

This list isn't ranking the greatest teams in history, it's ranking the greatest players in history.

You can NEVER use team success to gauge how good a player was, because it is completely illogical.  Let me explain why.

What would have happened if the two players switched teams, Wilt was the one on those Celtics teams.  Would Russell still have won all those titles, or would Wilt have won them?

If you say Russell would have won them, then how do you know this? 

Answer is, you don't.  There is no possible way for you to say what the result would have been.  You would be attempting to say what happens in a reality that never existed - your answer would be based on nothing hypothetical, conjecture and subjective opinion.   

This is why you cannot say that Russell was better than Wilt based on the TEAM's results.  Because you aren't comparing the teams, you're comparing the players.

It's the same reason why you cannot say Tim Duncan was a better player than Kevin Garnett because he has more rings.  Again - you're comparing team success, not player success.

The only way you can compare one player to another is their INDIVIDUAL achievements. 

Wilt averaged 30 points (54% FG, 51% FT), 23 rebounds and 5 assists for his career and was a 15 time All-Star.  He still holds a record for the highest scoring average (50.4 PPG) and rebound average (27.2 RPG) in history.  When a guy is averaging 50.4 PPG and 25.7 RPG in a single season, kinda hard to argue that is anything but absolute dominance. 

Kareem averaged 25 points (56% FG, 72% FT), 11 rebounds, 4 assists, 1 steal and 2.7 blocks over his career and was a 19 time All-Star.  He is the all time NBA leader in points scored.   

Bill Russell averaged 15 points (44% FG, 56% FT), 22.5 rebounds and 4 assists over his career and was a 12 time All-Star.

Now looking at these guys for their personal achievements alone, it's perfectly understandable why somebody might rank Kareem and Wilt over Russell.  I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that it's a fair call to make. 

These guys are probably the three greatest centers who have ever played the game, so all three of them were completely dominant - it's not like we're ranking Brendan Haywood over Hakeem Olajuwon here.

Arguing who was the best individual player out of Kareem/Wilt/Russell is like arguing who was the best out of Robinson/Olajuwon/Shaq.  Those guys were pretty much equally dominant, so how can you possibly separate them without resorting to subjective arguments and personal bias?

Again, we are talking about ranking the greatest players in history, not the ones who led the best teams. Being the best player on the most dominant team does not necessarily mean that you are the most dominant player, period.  The 2nd and 3rd most dominant players on your team might be FAR more dominant than the 2nd and 3rd most dominant players on the other team, and that may be what makes your team so much more dominant.

You are completely ignoring the most important part of this debate.

As an INDIVIDUAL, Russell had more impact on his TEAM'S defense than any other player in NBA history.

How can you ignore the half of the game that is where Russell made his name?

No, I am not ignoring Russell's defensive impact on his team. 

The fact that I'm putting Russell (who was a FAR inferior offensively) in the discussion as being on the same level as Wilt/Kareem is almost entirely because of his dominance as a defensive player.  If he wasn't as dominant as he was defensively, he wouldn't even be in the discussion.

That said, a few points:

1) You say Russell had more impact on his teams defense then any other player in history.  That is your opinion.  Hearsay.  Conjecture.  There have been many elite defensive players in the NBA over it's 60 or 70 (or so) year history.  You have absolutely nothing concrete or objective to back that up.  I'm not saying that it isn't true (in fact I'm sure it it probably is true), I'm just saying it isn't a proven fact, but an opinion. You have the right to yours, just as others have the right to disagree.

2) Defense is only one part of the game.  Who has the right to determine as a fact that Russel's defensive impact was more impressive than Wilt's or Kareem's offensive impact?  You might argue that Russell was twice as dominant defensively as Wilt and Kareem were.  The next guy might argue that Wilt and Kareem were twice as dominant offensively as Russell was.  How do you determine which of those takes precedence?

Anyway, I think you are misinterpreting the point I'm trying to make here.  I'm not trying to argue that Russell isn't the best of those three guys.  All I'm saying is that all three of those guys were similarly great/dominant and that realistic arguments can be made for all three - you can put them in any order, and it wouldn't be unreasonable. 

Nobody can declare, as an undisputed fact, that Russell was better player than Wilt.  Or that he was better than Kareem. Nobody can make those arguments without bringing up championships, which is not a fair argument (because it's a team achievement, not individual). 

It's like arguing that the  Ford Focus ST is a better car than the Renault Megane Trophy because Ford as a company sold FAR more cars than Renault did. That's just an irrational argument, because the success of a brand doesn't tell you anything about how good one specific model is. 

In fact it's worse, because at least you can get sales figures of the Focus vs Ford as a company, and calculate how much it contributed (ditto with Renault). You can't do that with Wilt/Russell/Jabbar. 

Hell even then, it still won't tell you which is a better car - just tells you which was more popular / sold more. There is no way to really factually say which car is better - they are both good at different things, so it's ultimately always going to be an opinion and a personal preference (as with this argument here).

But if players are indeed that close in talent, stats, and general opinion, how on earth does the massive gap Bill has in rings not count for something?

Russell transcends stats.

He lead the greatest sports dynasty in American sports post WWII.

I understand what you are saying, and appreciate the eloquence you say it with.

That said, I think that when looking at their respective bodies of work, combined with what other players of the day had to say, Russell clearly should have the edge over them.

No, because more team wins doesn't make a better player.

In 2008 Lebron James and Kobe Bryant were quite probably the two best players in the entire NBA. 

In 2008 Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen got rings, but Lebron James and Kobe Bryant did not.

Was Kevin Garnett a better player than Lebron James because he got a ring?  No.  But he was on a great team, with a group of guys who had great chemistry, and that group of guys collectively beat the Lakers to win the title.

Quantity of rings does not always equal quality of player.  Even if twp players are closely matched, it still doesn't mean the one with more rings is better. It just means they are both great players, and one played on better teams.

Again, it's like saying that you would 'assume' the Focus is better than the Megane because both cars are closely matched, but Ford sells more cars.  That's not accurate.  The number of cars sold by the parent company does not any indication at all as to the level of quality of the individual car model. It's two completely different things. Maybe Ford sold more because they are a more well known brand, because they have more brand loyalty, because they have cheaper servicing costs, because they are more readily available - there are a million possible reasons.  You can't just say it sold more because it's a better car. That's completely irrational.   

Likewise, maybe Russell won more rings because the Celtics were better coached.  Maybe they had more depth on their roster.  Maybe they had more stars on their roster. Maybe their players on the roster simply had better chemistry and had more complimentary skill sets.  There are a million possible things that could have led to Boston winning so many titles, you can't just blindly assume that all that credit goes to Russell. 

I mean it's not like the other two guys never won anything.  Wilt won two NBA championships.  Kareem won 6 NBA championships.  Both guys have rings.  Wilt's 2 rings might mean more than all of Russell's rings if Wilt's teams were significantly less talented - it might me he had more impact on those two rings then Russell did on any of his.

Not saying that's true, just saying it's not set in stone.

[TheSundanceKid]

I have no real issue with Russell at 7th.

The man with the most championships at 7th? The man who went up against and beat Wilt Chamberlain nigh on every year?

I feel like his stature would be far less in doubt if blocks had been recorded back then to quiet the stats crowd. You gotta feel that his BPG would be the all time leader or at least close to it

Russell didn't beat Chamberlain, the Boston Celtics with its 7 or so HOFers did.  Chamberlain consistently out performed Russell in every statistical category. 

Edit: The first time Wilt even had 2 other HOFers (Greer and Cunningham, neither of which was anywhere close to a 1st ballot guy) on his team (aside from Cunningham's rookie year the year prior), the Sixers won 68 games and beat the 8 time defending champion Celtics in 5 games.  Winning matters, no question, but you win when you have talented teammates.  Wilt for the majority of his career did not have great teammates.  When he did, the result was one of the greatest seasons by any team in league history.  And again that is just 2 other HOFers, Russell consistently was playing with at least 4 other HOFers (Hondo, the Joneses, Howell, and early on Cousy).

I feel your argument is flawed.  The reason Bill Russell played with so many Hall of Famers is because they won so many championships, not because his teammates put up some incredible numbers. The reason they won so many championships (8 years in a row, 11 in 13 years) was because Bill Russell anchored their defense, let them in rebounding, which enabled them to run other teams off the court.  Ask his team-mates, most are still alive and will tell you the same.  Ask Russell's competitors, or NBA players who grew up watching him play (Jabbar, Walton) and they will tell you the same.

When did Wilt Chamberlain first play with someone anywhere near as good as Bob Cousy or John Havilcek?  Heck how about Sam Jones?

Sure the titles probably made a HOFer out of KC Jones, but the Cous, Hondo and Sam were all HOF caliber players without the insane titles (as were Clyde Lovellette and Bailey Howell since they only had 2 and 3 years in Boston with 2 titles each)

In both the '65-'66 season and the  '67-'68 season, Chamberlain played with Hal Greer, Wally Jones, Luke Jackson, Billy Cunningham and Chet Walker. The talent surrounding Chamberlain that year exceeded the talent level of Russell's team-mates.  Not even close. (That squad was the same one that had that tremendous '66-67 team that some historians depict as the greatest of all time.  Guess who won those two series? Celtics, who went on to beat the Lakers, who featured one of the greatest guards (Jerry West) and forwards (Elgin Baylor) in NBA history.  In fact the Celtics beat the Lakers so many times during the 60's, despite the two best players, from a statistical POV (which is how kids seem to measure value these days, God bless them) playing for the Lakers.  We don't win any of those series without Russell playing center. Heck, if he had not been injured in the '57-'58 season, we would have beaten the St. Louis Hawks, which would have given Russell let teams 10 championships in a row (we won our first in '56-'57.  Do you know why? Do you think it had anything to do with Bill Russell joining the team that year?  Who had better talent around him in '68-69 season, Wilt, with West and Baylor, or Russell, with Don Nelson, Bailey Howell and Emmit Bryant?  Be real.

Wilt put up the numbers (including against Bill). Bill always won (including against Wilt).  People often under-appreciate why Russell was such a winner.  He was an incredibly gifted athlete (competing in the Olympics as a high jumper, of all things), but what made him so great, (something pedestrian analysts at ESPN and SI do not understand, because they can't quantify it) was his mental and leadership skills, his tremendous will to win. I know that sounds vague, but I feel very strongly about how much Russell was able to motivate his team-mates, and also to outsmart his opponents. And how he should go down as the best of all time.  The only other player in the conversation is Michael Jordan.

I rest my case.

Love this comment. TP. If people are going to use stats in an argument they have to recognise that many of those relate to the individual aspect of basketball and not the team aspect. To be one of the greatest in a team sport then statistical greatness cannot be your strongest argument.

[TheSundanceKid]

...and Wilt was arguably the single most dominant player in NBA history. 

yet Russell dominated him year after year after year after year after year after year...

Russell won in high school, won in college, and has the most NBA rings ever.  There is no argument, Bill is without doubt the most dominant basketball player of all time.

Bill didn't dominate Wilt at all.  In fact, Wilt won the head to head virtually every time they met.  The Celtics on the other hand is a different story.

One of the reasons Bill Russell is so great is BECAUSE he had to go through Wilt so many times to win it all. 

And he did. 

9 times out of 10 through the 60s when each was at their athletic peak.

Wilt didn't get his second ring until Bill retired.  Russell absolutely dominated him, head to head.  Sure maybe Wilt could score, but Bill was the complete player, getting the most of his teammates, blocking shots and playing for the W.

You are saying Russell dominated Wilt constantly. 

He didn't.

Russel's TEAM dominated Wilt's TEAM.

You are falling in to the exact same trap - confusing team achievements/performance with individual achievements/performance.

This list isn't ranking the greatest teams in history, it's ranking the greatest players in history.

You can NEVER use team success to gauge how good a player was, because it is completely illogical.  Let me explain why.

What would have happened if the two players switched teams, Wilt was the one on those Celtics teams.  Would Russell still have won all those titles, or would Wilt have won them?

If you say Russell would have won them, then how do you know this? 

Answer is, you don't.  There is no possible way for you to say what the result would have been.  You would be attempting to say what happens in a reality that never existed - your answer would be based on nothing hypothetical, conjecture and subjective opinion.   

This is why you cannot say that Russell was better than Wilt based on the TEAM's results.  Because you aren't comparing the teams, you're comparing the players.

It's the same reason why you cannot say Tim Duncan was a better player than Kevin Garnett because he has more rings.  Again - you're comparing team success, not player success.

The only way you can compare one player to another is their INDIVIDUAL achievements. 

Wilt averaged 30 points (54% FG, 51% FT), 23 rebounds and 5 assists for his career and was a 15 time All-Star.  He still holds a record for the highest scoring average (50.4 PPG) and rebound average (27.2 RPG) in history.  When a guy is averaging 50.4 PPG and 25.7 RPG in a single season, kinda hard to argue that is anything but absolute dominance. 

Kareem averaged 25 points (56% FG, 72% FT), 11 rebounds, 4 assists, 1 steal and 2.7 blocks over his career and was a 19 time All-Star.  He is the all time NBA leader in points scored.   

Bill Russell averaged 15 points (44% FG, 56% FT), 22.5 rebounds and 4 assists over his career and was a 12 time All-Star.

Now looking at these guys for their personal achievements alone, it's perfectly understandable why somebody might rank Kareem and Wilt over Russell.  I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that it's a fair call to make. 

These guys are probably the three greatest centers who have ever played the game, so all three of them were completely dominant - it's not like we're ranking Brendan Haywood over Hakeem Olajuwon here.

Arguing who was the best individual player out of Kareem/Wilt/Russell is like arguing who was the best out of Robinson/Olajuwon/Shaq.  Those guys were pretty much equally dominant, so how can you possibly separate them without resorting to subjective arguments and personal bias?

Again, we are talking about ranking the greatest players in history, not the ones who led the best teams. Being the best player on the most dominant team does not necessarily mean that you are the most dominant player, period.  The 2nd and 3rd most dominant players on your team might be FAR more dominant than the 2nd and 3rd most dominant players on the other team, and that may be what makes your team so much more dominant.

You are completely ignoring the most important part of this debate.

As an INDIVIDUAL, Russell had more impact on his TEAM'S defense than any other player in NBA history.

How can you ignore the half of the game that is where Russell made his name?

No, I am not ignoring Russell's defensive impact on his team. 

The fact that I'm putting Russell (who was a FAR inferior offensively) in the discussion as being on the same level as Wilt/Kareem is almost entirely because of his dominance as a defensive player.  If he wasn't as dominant as he was defensively, he wouldn't even be in the discussion.

That said, a few points:

1) You say Russell had more impact on his teams defense then any other player in history.  That is your opinion.  Hearsay.  Conjecture.  There have been many elite defensive players in the NBA over it's 60 or 70 (or so) year history.  You have absolutely nothing concrete or objective to back that up.  I'm not saying that it isn't true (in fact I'm sure it it probably is true), I'm just saying it isn't a proven fact, but an opinion. You have the right to yours, just as others have the right to disagree.

2) Defense is only one part of the game.  Who has the right to determine as a fact that Russel's defensive impact was more impressive than Wilt's or Kareem's offensive impact?  You might argue that Russell was twice as dominant defensively as Wilt and Kareem were.  The next guy might argue that Wilt and Kareem were twice as dominant offensively as Russell was.  How do you determine which of those takes precedence?

Anyway, I think you are misinterpreting the point I'm trying to make here.  I'm not trying to argue that Russell isn't the best of those three guys.  All I'm saying is that all three of those guys were similarly great/dominant and that realistic arguments can be made for all three - you can put them in any order, and it wouldn't be unreasonable. 

Nobody can declare, as an undisputed fact, that Russell was better player than Wilt.  Or that he was better than Kareem. Nobody can make those arguments without bringing up championships, which is not a fair argument (because it's a team achievement, not individual). 

It's like arguing that the  Ford Focus ST is a better car than the Renault Megane Trophy because Ford as a company sold FAR more cars than Renault did. That's just an irrational argument, because the success of a brand doesn't tell you anything about how good one specific model is. 

In fact it's worse, because at least you can get sales figures of the Focus vs Ford as a company, and calculate how much it contributed (ditto with Renault). You can't do that with Wilt/Russell/Jabbar. 

Hell even then, it still won't tell you which is a better car - just tells you which was more popular / sold more. There is no way to really factually say which car is better - they are both good at different things, so it's ultimately always going to be an opinion and a personal preference (as with this argument here).

But if players are indeed that close in talent, stats, and general opinion, how on earth does the massive gap Bill has in rings not count for something?

Russell transcends stats.

He lead the greatest sports dynasty in American sports post WWII.

I understand what you are saying, and appreciate the eloquence you say it with.

That said, I think that when looking at their respective bodies of work, combined with what other players of the day had to say, Russell clearly should have the edge over them.

No, because more team wins doesn't make a better player.

In 2008 Lebron James and Kobe Bryant were quite probably the two best players in the entire NBA. 

In 2008 Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen got rings, but Lebron James and Kobe Bryant did not.

Was Kevin Garnett a better player than Lebron James because he got a ring?  No.  But he was on a great team, with a group of guys who had great chemistry, and that group of guys collectively beat the Lakers to win the title.

Quantity of rings does not always equal quality of player.  Even if twp players are closely matched, it still doesn't mean the one with more rings is better. It just means they are both great players, and one played on better teams.

Again, it's like saying that you would 'assume' the Focus is better than the Megane because both cars are closely matched, but Ford sells more cars.  That's not accurate.  The number of cars sold by the parent company does not any indication at all as to the level of quality of the individual car model. It's two completely different things. Maybe Ford sold more because they are a more well known brand, because they have more brand loyalty, because they have cheaper servicing costs, because they are more readily available - there are a million possible reasons.  You can't just say it sold more because it's a better car. That's completely irrational.   

Likewise, maybe Russell won more rings because the Celtics were better coached.  Maybe they had more depth on their roster.  Maybe they had more stars on their roster. Maybe their players on the roster simply had better chemistry and had more complimentary skill sets.  There are a million possible things that could have led to Boston winning so many titles, you can't just blindly assume that all that credit goes to Russell. 

I mean it's not like the other two guys never won anything.  Wilt won two NBA championships.  Kareem won 6 NBA championships.  Both guys have rings.  Wilt's 2 rings might mean more than all of Russell's rings if Wilt's teams were significantly less talented - it might me he had more impact on those two rings then Russell did on any of his.

Not saying that's true, just saying it's not set in stone.

The only thing I have to say for your arguments is that you seem to completely discount winning as a factor in a team sport. The list is the greatest players in NBA history, not the greatest individuals. The hardest quality to find in a player is the willingness to sacrifice individual accolades for team success. That was the entire basis of the 2008 team. So whilst Lebron might have been the better individual talent that year, he wasn't the better player because he hadn't discovered the sacrifice it takes to win. I'd argue he still hasn't completely found that yet. If he had we could have been looking at 5 championships in a row and more to come!

[Celtics4ever]

I for one, think Russell could have put up better numbers, but chose not to.  He was about winning.

[fairweatherfan]

Wilt could dunk a basketball from outside the free throw line.  And he did so.  In games, before it was made illegal.

Just to clarify this for folks because it's amazing, it wasn't the dunking that was illegal, it was that he was dunking his free throws.  He was a bad shooter from the line so he would just dunk them instead.  Completely insane athleticism.

this cannot be true....... is it?

It is, though after looking it up he was doing it in a college freshman game (freshmen couldn't play varsity at the time) and the NCAA and NBA swiftly changed the rules to ban it before he could do it in a proper game.  There's no video of it though there are eyewitnesses and people familiar with the rule change - I posted a YouTube video that discusses it.