A couple years ago there was a poll of "NBA experts" on ESPN.com over who the greatest centers in NBA history are. The results are here: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dailydime-GreatestCenters According to their ranking, Bill Russell ends up third, behind Abdul-Jabbar and Chamberlain, but ahead of Shaq and Hakeem. Of the 20 experts, 5 said Abdul-Jabbar was the greatest, 4 said Chamberlain was the greatest, 10 said Bill Russell was the greatest, and one voted Shaquille O'neal as the greatest. What sets Russell apart from these other players, of course, is that he was not considered a great individual offensive player. Over his career averaged only 15 ppg on 44% shooting from the field. On the other hand, he was known then, and by many now, as the greatest defensive player in the game's history. His shot-blocking and ability to control the glass was often praised by his teammates and his coach for keying the Celtics fast break. He was a good passer from the pivot, and he played a ton of minutes. He was the only player-coach to ever win a championship. The focal point of the greatest dynasty in team sports. Over his career, he won 5 MVPs. One can go on and on over his accomplishments, so I'll leave it there. So, where should Bill Russell rank? Is putting him third overrating him? For now, I'll say yes. If I was building a team, I think I'd take Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, and Hakeem ahead of him. There are other pivots that come to mind as well that I'd strongly consider taking (Duncan, Moses, Robinson) ahead of Russell.
first off, i have to say i have never seen the guy play live obviously. so i can only go by what i saw on espn classics/highlights/stats. bill russell is easily the greatest winner in basketball with his 11 championships. there is no denying he's one of the best players on the defensive side of the court (should be one of the leaders in blocks in history of blocks were kept as a stat back then, along with his 22.5 rebounds per game average ). however, some of these stats were kind of skewed with the game being different back then. nevertheless, those are eye-popping stats. however, i'd be hard-pressed to put someone so high (above a shaq or hakeem) without a dominant offensive game. bill russell was not a great offensive player (as a big man, he shot 44% and only averaged 15 points for his career). regardless of what people say about stats, 15 points on 44% shooting is mediocre for a dominant center. like you durvasa, i would choose kareem, wilt, shaq, hakeem, timmy, and a few more over him without hesitation. but i don't disagree with people who put him that high. he's a winner and it's hard to neglect his 11 championships as a player. people have different standards when it comes to rating players (some put more emphasis on stats and over dominance, others put more emphasis on championships).
Thanks for making this thread durvasa and I'll explain my reasonings.....with the list of Myths that I have managed to debunk. Myth #1 - Bill Russell was an average offensive player because his career averages were 15 PPG under 44% FG shoooting. - That is straight up dead wrong. How many shots are generated by a big guy setting a pick?? How many layups are because of an outlet pass that starts the break?? How many shots around the rim are made easier because of the threat of a great offensive rebounder?? There are no Centers that averages more assists than Russell in post season history with 4.7 APG (Could be wrong). Is passing not part of being an offensive player? Last I check it was, and also while his field goal % looks ordinary in today's league, it was top 7 in the league 4 times. It was a different time and a different game back then. And to end this all, Bill Russell was very capable of scoring 20 PPG, as he said on Roundtable talk with Greg Oden and other great centers, it just was not his job, he could do it but he never did. In 1962 and in 1963 he averaged 20+ PPG in the Playoffs. There is his capability of scoring. Myth #2 - Bill Russell would have been nothing if he wasn't playing for the Boston Celtics - Again a Myth and nothing but. Won 2 ncaa titles at a program that was absolutely nothing before he got there, and was absolutely nothing after he left (USF). Led them to a 55 game win streak in those two years.Along with that he was the Captain of the gold medal winning team in the Melbourne Olympics in 1956, prior to joining the Celtics mid-season. Also, The Celtics were like this..... Before Russell--Nothing, about a .500ish team During Russell--11 titles in 13 years Directly After Russell--Missing the playoffs I would offer that many of the players who played with Russell were able to raise their play, because Russell was able to take care of virtually everything on the defensive end of the court, and a fair bit on offense as well. He just made life so much easier for all involved. Myth #3 - Wilt Chamberlain played with Scrubs while Bill Russell had the most stacked team in NBA History - Big Myth. Wilt Chamberlain played with 8 HOfers throughout his career while Bill Russell had 9. That's pretty even, I don't think 1 HOFer will make that much of a difference, especially if you are supposely more "dominant" than the other player. Wilt played with Elgin Baylor, Tom Gola, Nate Thurmond, Billy Cunningham, Paul Arizin, Jerry West, Goodrich, and Hal Greer. So if you think it was the teammates were the reasons why Russell managed to win every single time, Try again. And Russell's HOF teammates..... Player - (Pts/Reb/Ast) - accomplishments Cousy - 18.4/5.2/7.5 (1 MVP, 10 straight 1st team all-NBA, 2 2nds) Sharman - 17.8/3.9/3.0 (4 1st team all-NBA, 2 2nds) Heinsohn - 18.6/8.8/2.0 (4 2nd team all-NBA) Ramsey - 13.4/5.5/1.8 (never made an All-Star team) Sam Jones - 17.7/4.9/2.5 (3 2nd team all-NBA) KC Jones - 7.4/3.5/4.3 (never made an All-Star team) Havlicek - 20.8/6.3/4.8 (4 1st team all-NBA, 7 2nds, all-defense 8 years) Lovellette - 17.0/9.5/1.7 (however, that was mainly with other teams). With Boston, Lovellette was a 10-minute a game player at the end of his career. Howell - (4 of 12 seasons with Boston), 18.7/9.9/1.9 (made 1 All-Star team with Bos) Of those guys, there's no way Ramsey or KC Jones gets in the HOF without the rings. Lovellette shouldn't even count because he was at the tail end of his career when he played with Boston. Myth #4 - Bill Rusell played in a Weak ERA, Replace him with anyone and they could dominant then. - Just another Myth. Its been alluded to a number of times, but the basic flaw in the argument of people who criticize Russell is they have an imaginary time machine. If Russell had been born 50 years later, he would not look at all like he did back then. He would have had much more polished offensive moves, having had several generations of centers to copy. He would probably have been about 20 lbs heavier that was all muscle. He would still be an absolute athletic freak of nature who could run the floor faster than guards and he would still have a basketball IQ off the charts high. Its a little bit like pretending that Kobe Bryant could have been born 50 years earlier and still be the same player, That's absolute nonsense. That Kobe would probably have issues dribbling with his left hand, would not have anywhere near as good a jumper, would have far fewer offensive moves, probably not have a fadeaway at all etc... He still would have been a great player for the era, but he would have looked nothing like what we associate with Kobe. There is no magic time machine. Great players in one era are great players in any era - End of discussion. Myth #5 - Wilt usually outplayed Russell, that's why he's the better player - Mostly a Myth, but somewhat true. Wilt only averaged 6 points a game more than Russell when it matters.... the playoffs. Not exactly that huge a difference. And in the playoffs, Russell gets more boards and dimes than Wilt, despite playing slightly lower minutes. And the players back then voted Russell more MVPs than Wilt. Along with that, People don't realize that most of the time Bill Russell LET Wilt Chamberlain score on him on purpose, You want to know why? Because that was how you put Wilt's team back then....Teams weren't stupid and teams weren't so weak that Wilt would dominant them THAT easily. You could double him or whatever. However, most of the time teams would purposely let Chamberlain score all the points in the beginning so he could get into a groove. Because once he gets on his groove he's not passing the ball ever, the only time his teammates would ever touch the ball in that Scenario is if they were dribbling the ball up the court. Why they would do that you would ask? Because that was how you beat Wilt's team. You would let Wilt get his and shut down every other player. Because Wilt wasn't always about the wins during his younger years, he cared greatly about stats and most of the time they were more important to them than wins. That was why he kept losing until Bill Russell retired because he learned to copy his style of play to win championships. Here's is one reason why Wilt outplayed Russell was a myth, Take 1969 for example. Russell on his last legs. Lakers are big favorites with Wilt, West and Baylor. Somebody forgot to tell Russell he was supposed to lose. He and the Celts hold Wilt to under 12 points a game that series. Wilt shoots 2-11 from the line in one loss (a one point loss I might add) and shoots 4-13 from the line in the deciding game 7 in a two point loss. He didn't exactly light up old Bill when it mattered then did he?
Most people haven't seen Russell play. I get the feeling that Russell's game can only be appreciated if you actually watched him do his thing on defense, it doesn't translate well in stats, especially since blocks were not kept as a stat back then. Who knows if Russell was overrated, his era is too long ago for today's fans to remember or relate to.
This is my centers are like running backs argument. It all depends on criteria. Biggest winner is Russell. Longevity? Jabbar. Dominance? Shaq Total package? Olajuwon Best in prime? Olajuwon Statistically? Chamberlain There is no clear cut best. Its all subjective. You cant rank them 1-10, you must rank them categorically.
durvasa, like you, I would put Wilt, Kareem, Hakeem and Shaq in front of Russell. So, yes, I definitely think he is overrated.
You know what's funny.... Russell has about as many MVPs as Hakeem and Wilt put together. I'd also like for you to read my post of me debunking all that junk.
Ok .. All valid points. But its hard to know how much better the Celtics offense was due to all that stuff. We have little hard evidence to rely on (basic stuff like how efficient was the Celtics offense compared to other teams are hard to determine). Yes, Bill Russell was known to be a great team player. Was he capable of being a goto scorer? Probably not, and that's a strike against him when he's being compared to some of the other centers. On the other hand, how many truly great offenses in NBA history depended on a center scoring a lot of points? Maybe teams are better off relying on perimeter players for the bulk of the scoring. There could be an argument there in favor of Russell. If he had some playoff series where he averaged 20+ ppg, can that really be considered such an accomplishment in an era when teams had 100+ possessions to work with and when he was playing nearly the entire game without going to the bench? I think its tough to argue he could have been a great scorer, simply if he wanted. I don't think he had the talent for that, but that's fine. He knew his strengths, and he played his role perfectly. With the Celtics fast break execution, Russ's dominance on the defensive end led to great offensive opportunities.
Comparing players across eras is just fruitless, I'll ask 3 questions: 1) Could Bill Russell stop 1995 playoff Hakeem one on one? 2) Could Bill Russell stop 2002 Shaq one on one? 3) Could those Celtics teams handle the 96 Bulls? You can argue both sides on all 3 questions, but there's simply no way of knowing, the game changes too much with time, just stick with comparing Russell to the guys of his day and be happy with that.
Wasn't alive back then but all I know is that Wilt was a beast, man amongst men, scored 100 pts in a game, we've all heard about him. And there was only one man who could take him on. From what I hear, the Russell-Chamberlin matchups made the NBA what it is today. Bill Russell won 11 championships, 2 of which in he was a player-coach. The man has high IQ, he is a leader and a winner. Really good post BizzleRocket, filled with facts and do a good job at silencing all critics. I think Ziggy said it best, depends on your critera. As for dominance, I'd take the Dream. He played in an era filled with amazing center (Robinson, Ewing, Mutombo, young Shaq, old Kareem) and he pwned all of them.
Actually If I recall correctly, In Last season's All-Star weekend Russell said that he was a better offensive player than a defensive player.
I was lucky enough to see Russell play on TV back when the Celtics were like the Yankees... on the tube all the freakin' time and there were only 3 channels, besides PBS. He was awesome. So was Wilt. I always thought Russell played on better teams, with superior coaching. One can make arguments about how many hall of famers one player had on his team compared to another, but it all comes down to how they played together and how well they were coached. The Celtics had pretty much any of Wilt's teams beat easily by that standard. Having said that, I'd pick Hakeem over both of them. I followed Dream when he was at UH and throughout his career with the Rockets, and I've never seen a better center. When you take all the things that make up a 5, Dream is the complete package. He just never had the team or the coaching he needed until relatively late in his career, excepting the all too brief couple of seasons before Sampson was injured and drugs blew up the deepest team in Rockets history. In my opinion, anyway.
Honestly i never seen Russel played be it live(too young) or espn classics(never broadcast in my country) but looking at his stats purely, 44 F% for center was simply too low and it doesn't matter which eras you were playing, is just unacceptable!
to me he's #1, first off he played defense first, second, the guy won atleast 11 nba titles(just off the top of my head). i bet if he wanted to be a scorer he could have been.
I think in the end of the day winning is what its all about, Blocks, assist, scoring, etc....contribute to winning that championship......and until someone surpasses those amount of championships as a PLAYER (Phil) i think history is going to have him as a one the greatest center if not the greatest center in the history of the NBA.......
As t_mac1 said, I haven't seen him play live so It would be difficult to really give an educated answer. But, based on what I've heard from older fans and media it wasn't really about the stats with him. If Shane Battier was a "no stats all star", he was a no stats once in a lifetime superstar. So, think of all the players with much better stats that you or most here consider Shane to be better than. So, you would have to give Russel even more respect, in that regard. He may not have the stats to prove it but by all accounts he was dominant in that era. Do I think Russel is overrated based on my very limited knowledge of him and his era from highlights and stats? Yes. I think the most likely occurrence is that he was a great leader, a hard worker, a hustler who was insanely athletic for his time period. That athleticism probably gave him a considerable edge defensively - something like Olajuwon playing D in a league where most wings are closer to Matt Harpring athletically than Michael Jordan. But what does that mean? With his work ethic, he'd probably grow to be a different player in a different league. The fact that he won so many championships and awards w/o having some of the skills that other great centers had means something. He didn't need it. Maybe he would have become better offensively if he needed to...but it doesn't look like he did.
