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

[mmmmm]

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)

Well, keep in mind, that Wilt was an extremely high USG player, especially in his first 5 or 6 seasons, taking 25 or more shots per game (plus about 12-13 free throws)  That means about he usually accounted for over a third of his team's scoring attempts.   That's not going to leave a ton of shots for his 'mates with which to rack up notable scoring numbers, which unfortunately, left many of them probably underrated for how good they were.   He had "non-star" guys like Tom Meschery, Al Attles,  and others playing with him pretty early and some of those guys went on to have long, very successful NBA careers, even separate of Wilt.  But they didn't exactly each score very many points while on those Wilt teams and that probably hurt them in AS voting and such.  That didn't mean they weren't great players.     Guy Rodgers and Nate Thurmond were on those teams and both are in the HoF even though they went on to play most of their careers on teams without Wilt. 

Wilt's usage dropped quite a bit after he left the Warriors and I don't know if it's true whether his teammates were better, but they did score more of the points and got more notice.  When he was on those great 76er teams, Wilt played with Greer, Cunningham & Chet Walker who were all inducted to the HoF and Costello, who was a 6 time All-Star.   

[Who]

I think some of those HOF's would say Russell played a large part in their elevation to that level.. I often feel Lebron is a modern day Wilt. Clearly one of the most talented players around but too much of an individual player to be one of the all time greatest. If this was Tennis then stats alone would be enough to call them the best but as it's a team sport and your success is defined by how well you gel with, lead and succeed with your teams, Russell has to come first.

I'm a serious Lebron-hater but it's impossible to deny how much better he makes his teammates.  Guy is one of the most unselfish players I've ever seen.

But yes I agree with your next statement that to be considered in the elite of elite you should need to be able to gel with/lead/succeed with your teams, and generally Bron Bron is a big whiner **** (giving up in game 6 against Celtics in 2010).

Impossible to argue how much better LeBron makes role players.

Easy to argue that LeBron does not make his fellow stars any better. In fact, they often play worse when alongside LeBron.

So did Jordan.  So did Bird.  So did Magic.  etc.  When you have to share the ball more, your numbers go down.  Only natural.

Bird and Magic were both much better at enabling their teammates to be stars.

I consider LeBron closer to MJ but I'd give MJ the edge here as well but that is mainly because MJ was luckier to work with better coaches in Dean Smith and Phil Jackson who molded Jordan the right way. Something LeBron has never had from any of his coaches.

Irving had better numbers last year than any year in his career.  Wade was actually about the same statistically in James' first year, then he just started getting older and more injured.

Yes, Bosh and Love had their numbers tail off, but Bosh and Love were also on far less talented teams where they were their only option prior to joining James. 

There are things to criticize James for, making his teammates worse is not one of them.

We will have to agree to disagree.

I have been unimpressed and disappointed with LeBron's team's offenses over the last 5 and a half years. His Wade-LeBron and Kyrie-LeBron partnerships have been very similar to Iverson-Melo's "his turn, my turn" offenses in Denver. Too much individualism and not enough focus on playing together as a team. LeBron has routinely failed to incorporate his star big men with Bosh and now K-Love (or even Shaq and the short-lived Jamison pairings).

I hope LeBron will grow and improve at this as he gets older because it will allow him to be much more successful especially as he starts to slow down.

[Moranis]

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)

Well, keep in mind, that Wilt was an extremely high USG player, especially in his first 5 or 6 seasons, taking 25 or more shots per game (plus about 12-13 free throws)  That means about he usually accounted for over a third of his team's scoring attempts.   That's not going to leave a ton of shots for his 'mates with which to rack up notable scoring numbers, which unfortunately, left many of them probably underrated for how good they were.   He had "non-star" guys like Tom Meschery, Al Attles,  and others playing with him pretty early and some of those guys went on to have long, very successful NBA careers, even separate of Wilt.  But they didn't exactly each score very many points while on those Wilt teams and that probably hurt them in AS voting and such.  That didn't mean they weren't great players.     Guy Rodgers and Nate Thurmond were on those teams and both are in the HoF even though they went on to play most of their careers on teams without Wilt. 

Wilt's usage dropped quite a bit after he left the Warriors and I don't know if it's true whether his teammates were better, but they did score more of the points and got more notice.  When he was on those great 76er teams, Wilt played with Greer, Cunningham & Chet Walker who were all inducted to the HoF and Costello, who was a 6 time All-Star.   

See that is my point, when you start talking about Wilt's teammates, you bring up Al Attles and Tom Meschery.  Wilt played with Thurmond for Thurmond's rookie year and half of Thurmond's second year.  The Thurmond that would go on to the HOF was not the player that played with Wilt (it took about 3 seasons after Wilt left for Thurmond to hit his stride).  Rodgers made the HOF in 2014 and I'm not even sure why other than perhaps he was a great passer.  He was no where near the quality of Sam Jones, yet alone Hondo or Cousy. 

The Sixers were a different story, but don't forget Cunningham was a rookie in 65/66 and missed the playoffs in 67/68.  Greer was certainly on par with Russell's teammates and when Cunningham was healthy, the Sixers destroyed Russell's Celtics and basically had the best season in NBA history until the Bulls. 

I mean what teammates would you rather have in the 67/68 playoffs.  Hondo, S. Jones, Howell, Siegfried, Nelson, Sanders, and Embry or Greer, Walker, Wali Jones, Luke Jackson, Johhny Green, Matt Guokas,  Bill Melchionni. 

[Big333223]

I thought Bill Simmons put this to rest in his Book of Basketball. I'm not going to bother paraphrasing. Suffice to say if you're trying to argue this and you haven't read that chapter of that book you should go do that.

[KG Living Legend]

 Bill
 Mike
 Magic
 Larry
 Timmy
 Kareem
 Oscar
 Who Cares

[GreenWarrior]

i'm shocked ESPN even acknowledged that Bill Russell played in the league.

[crimson_stallion]

I know even acknowledging it means I've been successfully trolled, but I couldn't help it... ESPN came up with some ranking of NBA greats and had Russell at #7. He's the 3rd center, behind Kareem and Wilt.

Has this been out for a while and I just noticed it?

The incredible short-sightedness of the modern NBA observer when it comes to Russell is astounding. We truly live in a stats-obsessed, individualistic age, where winning is nothing more than a quaint afterthought.

Link here: http://espn.go.com/boston/nba/story/_/page/nbarank7/all-nbarank-7

I don't think it's so clear cut.

While I understand the argument about player's history as a winner, I'm not too caught up in it.  Fact is that this is a team game, and in this league it is teams (not players) that win championships.

Sure their might be some players who have more of a contribution to those championships than other players, but I don't believe I have ever seen a crappy (or even average) team win a championship based purely on the dominant performances by it's star player.

As a general rule, I do not judge players' individual greatness based on the number of championships their teams have won. 

Winning a championship is not easy - every year there are some 30 teams, and only 1 of those wins.  Every year there are 3 or 4 truly great teams that come short of the ultimate goal.  I don't think that is a knock on those team's best players.  As long as that player's teams have been able to be constantly competitive while said player was leading them, then I think that's enough.

For example, Dirk went for years without winning a title, and everybody criticised him for it.  Then finally he won a title, and now he gets respect.  Why?  Was he any better a player that year he won the ring, than he was all those prior years?  No, not at all.  That Mav's team was just better than the prior ones were - guys like Tyson Chandler, JJ Barea and Jason Kidd and Vince Carter had a huge impact on Dirk getting that one step further that year.

That's why it still infuriates me when people put Tim Duncan in the 'top 5 all-time' lists.  Tim Duncan has been a great player his whole career, but his individual achievements (while impressive) are not exactly otherworldly.  70% of all recognition Duncan gets is because the number of rings he owns, yet he won those rings playing on elite teams that were run by one of the greatest coaching minds in NBA history.

If Duncan played for less impressive teams that were not coached so well, and only got one championship (or even none) in his time, then nobody would dream of putting him on a top 20 list based on his individual success alone.

So, i don't think putting Russell at #7 is so blasphemous.  It's a subjective list, and if the person making the list can give their own justification for it then that's fine.  Kareem is the NBA's all time leading scorer, and Wilt was arguably the single most dominant player in NBA history.  If you are ranking individuals based on individual ability/achievements, then I think that's perfectly justifiable.

[D Dub]

...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. 

[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. 

[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.

How can you say he won the "head to head" if he lost the game?

I would rather have someone score 50 on me, but I win the game, than the other way around.

I don't care if someone scores 50...if they lost the game, they lost the "head to head"

[D Dub]

...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. 

[Who]

For example, Dirk went for years without winning a title, and everybody criticised him for it.  Then finally he won a title, and now he gets respect.  Why?  Was he any better a player that year he won the ring, than he was all those prior years?  No, not at all.  That Mav's team was just better than the prior ones were - guys like Tyson Chandler, JJ Barea and Jason Kidd and Vince Carter had a huge impact on Dirk getting that one step further that year.

Yes, Dirk was better then than earlier in his career. Avery Johnson pushed him to develop his post game and it took Dirk a few years to get it where it needed to go. Then GSW humiliated him in 2007. It wasn't until 2009 when Dirk improved his post game enough to reach his peak as a player.

In that period from 2009-2012, Dirk was a much better player than earlier in his career. The total offensive player who could punish any type of defender / team defense opposing teams threw at him unlike earlier in his career when smaller types like Bruce Bowen or Stephen Jackson could bother him.

Dirk of pre-2009 could not have led that 2011 Mavs team to a title. He wasn't good enough. He deserved to be criticized. He needed to work hard, improve and make that next leap ... and Dirk did exactly that which is why he is now held in such high esteem. Never quit. Kept working and developing his game and finally made it to the mountain top.

[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?

[crimson_stallion]

For example, Dirk went for years without winning a title, and everybody criticised him for it.  Then finally he won a title, and now he gets respect.  Why?  Was he any better a player that year he won the ring, than he was all those prior years?  No, not at all.  That Mav's team was just better than the prior ones were - guys like Tyson Chandler, JJ Barea and Jason Kidd and Vince Carter had a huge impact on Dirk getting that one step further that year.

Yes, Dirk was better then than earlier in his career. Avery Johnson pushed him to develop his post game and it took Dirk a few years to get it where it needed to go. Then GSW humiliated him in 2007. It wasn't until 2009 when Dirk improved his post game enough to reach his peak as a player.

In that period from 2009-2012, Dirk was a much better player than earlier in his career. The total offensive player who could punish any type of defender / team defense opposing teams threw at him unlike earlier in his career when smaller types like Bruce Bowen or Stephen Jackson could bother him.

Better than earlier in his career, maybe.  But was Dirk a significantly better player in the year he won the title, compared to the previous year when he didn't win the title (but the Mavs were still very strong)?

The answer is, no.  He was as good as the previous year, and if he was individually better, it wouldn't have been by enough to make the difference between a title and no title.  His team was simply stronger because of the other guys on it.

Same with KG.  Was he a better player for Boston in 2008 than he was for Minnesota in 2007?  Of course not.  He was on a better team, and he got a ring for it.  He was just as dominant a player in Minny in 2007, when his team (from memory) failed to make the playoffs.

[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?