all these years we have known that bill russell accumulated his titles while having the benefit of playing with 8 hall of famers. turns out, it was actually 9! good ol' tom "satch" sanders made the hall of fame this year. and it was about time. http://bostonherald.com/sports/basketball/celtics/view.bg?articleid=1328391&srvc=sports&position=4 how could bill not win titles playing with this basketball immortal. i mean, the man made an all-defensive 2nd team, he was top 2 in games played 6 times, and top 5 in fouls 3 times. even tommy heinsohn thinks he should have made it! the hall of fame committee has spoken: "Mr. Miller, we knew Tom 'Satch' Sanders and you, sir, are no Tom 'Satch' Sanders."
He was overrated because he was the first to do a lot of new things that basketball hadn't seen at the time. He was also the only guy who could go head to head with Chamberlain, although considering the era that's not saying much. Put him in the 90s where you had tons of stand out centers, increased competition, more athletic guard play... and he wouldn't be seen as a GOAT.
You can't compare a player from one era with players from another era. Bill Russell was a top three player in his generation for 10+ years. He is not overrated.
Standing out in your era is what makes you great. Just because the competition wasn't great, he stole rose above everyone else instead of staying at the same level as his competition.
Playing with hall of famers doesn't make Bill Russell's game worse. Bill Russell has the accolades and praise he does because of his game. Not because of his teammates. We can say that he wasn't the lone driving force behind each and every one of those 11 rings, but that doesn't make his game all of a sudden worse than it was before. He isn't overrated.
90% of you totally missed the real point of the OP (psst - it's not about Russell at all) <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JP6PtknQ0b8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Yes you can. I think Dwight Howard is an "above average" center in the context of all time big men, and I think he could dunk on Russell "habitually". Saying I can't compare atheletes from different eras is like saying I can't tell if Usain Bolt is faster than Carl Lewis because they never ran side by side.... That said, he is not overrated, just not the best big man of all time. Bill Russell = Patrick Ewing IMO. Ewing would have won every year playing a much smaller league team wise and being gurded by guys the size of Chuck Hayes (-40 lbs) and the B-Ball IQ and hands of Jordan Hill.
Was it still 5 on 5 with a 10 foot rim with the object of the game to place the ball through the hoop as many times as possible while stopping the other team from doing so? I get what you mean about the comparison being difficult but I compare them the same way I would compare Kobe vs Jordan. If I had my pick, who would I pick first? In Jordan's era, Kobe would be just above average. In Kobe's era, Jordan would be illegal. In Russell's era, Dwight Howard would be legendary. Today, Russell would be Samuel Dalembert.
Greatness shouldnt be measured by another persons abilities in a different time...If he was great, then damnit he was great...I dont care if he played against 5'ft leprechauns from Mars...He's a great legend and shouldnt be compared to other folks after his time.... word!!!
Not hating or taking anything away from him. The guy was a beast. But this is how I would make my comparison: Notice the difference in the hieght on blocked shots, rebounds, and dunks. Maybe Russell didn't have to jump as high as he could because he was playing against much shorter players, but many of Russells blocks are with the top of his hand at rim level. D-howards and Dreams blocks show much more athletecism and quickness. You can't compare from different eras, but video don't lie. <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/40iKnaUjz_w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SDDdcnl3DCc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WlrcMW1FAE4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Now I know many of you will argue that players today are stronger, faster, more atheletic, and more skilled. To me, by definition, that means they are BETTER. Not more accomplished, but better. If wilt can block Kareem's sky hook with just his forearm at rim level, I would like to logically think that Dwight Howard could beat that sky hook all up with his head at rim level.
