Eeek! Noooo. Yes, his totals were a lot higher because he played longer, but consider the guy was putting up 20+ ppg and averaging 30 mpg into his late 30's. His totals were high, but so were his averages. I can't agree with that being a padding of his stats. He was just that good later in his career. Yeah, he couldn't bang with the big boys much anymore later in his career, but the fact he could still score like that means a lot. And yes, I know Magic was feeding him, but Kareem was an incredible ball player even without him.
A++++++ This is why I read clutchfans. Brilliant. Just my two cents, but I think Bill's best match up would have been Hakeem in those two years he was in his prime of primes. Either way, Bill was the best and would have killed Hakeem on an average year.
Based on what? I don't understand that at all. No one killed Hakeem. "If David Robinson isn't quick enough to stop you, nobody is." -- Double Clutch
everyone who doubts russell needs to read this post Tharegul8r Hands down the best post I've ever read on a sports topic on this site On the Celtics, it wasn’t necessary—“[D]ifferent players had to play different roles in order to win. We couldn’t expect to do so if each player took on the identical role of scoring as many points as possible, hoping that ours added up to more than our opponents’. … If [Red had] said to me, ‘What we need from you is twenty-five points a game,’ I might have been able to do it, but we wouldn’t have won much.”—but he could score if necessary for his team to win. EXAMPLE: In the 1962 NBA playoffs, Russell led the Celtics in scoring at 22.4 ppg, and in the NBA Finals, which would have been one of his NBA Finals MVP awards had it existed then: team-high 22.9 points and 27.0 rebounds per game, becoming the first player in NBA history to average 20 points and 20 rebounds during the course of a Finals, and in the deciding Game 7, he had 30 points and 40 rebounds in a game the Celtics won by three points in one of the greatest single-game performances in NBA Finals history. 1963 NBA Finals: 20.0 points, 26.0 rebounds, 5.3 assists per game, averages 20-20 for the second consecutive NBA Finals. 25 points on 10-of-19 shooting and 29 rebounds in Game 2 in a three-point Boston win. 21 points, 19 rebounds, five assists in Game 3. 22 points, 19 rebounds in Game 4. 24 points on 7-of-13 shooting from the floor and 10-of-13 from the free throw line, 27 rebounds and five assists in Game 5. Finished one assist shy of a triple double in the deciding Game 6. He, not Willis Reed, would have been the first player in NBA history to win All-Star Game MVP, regular season MVP, and NBA Finals MVP in the same season. Oh yeah, plus the Defensive Player of the Year Award, had it existed, making the him first one ever to do that, winning every damn award he would have been eligible for. 1965 NBA Finals: Set an NBA Finals record for highest field-goal percentage in a 5-game series (70.2 percent), a record which still stands to this day. In the deciding Game 5, he had a team-high 22 points on 6-of-9 shooting from the floor and 10 of 12 shooting from the line, 30 rebounds and four assists before leaving the game with six minutes remaining. Yet another NBA Finals MVP award to go with his regular season MVP award. 1966 NBA Finals: Led the Celtics in scoring at 23.6 points-per-game and shot 74 percent from the free throw line, and in the deciding Game 7, he had a team-high 25 points and 32 rebounds to lead Boston to a 95-93 win. Tom Heinsohn: “His detractors are always quick to say he couldn’t score, which isn’t true; he scored plenty of points when it counted.” But of course, people just talk without knowing what they’re talking about. Jerry West: “Russell is not big for a center … but he’s so smart and so quick he has complete control of the middle of the court. He stops guys from driving and shooting and passing near the basket because he blocks so many shots and intercepts so many passes he inhibits the other guys.” B.S. Shaq never dominated the boards or got tons of blocks NOW. Mr. MDE couldn’t rebound with the 6-8 Rodman, so how’s he going to rebound with Russ and Wilt? And apparently you’re unaware of one of the knocks on Kareem at the time: “Though [7 feet 2 inches] tall, Abdul-Jabbar is not a good rebounder. Because of his size, he has done adequately in the statistics, but he could do more. Defensively, he plays hard in spurts. There are days when he roams the court like an aggrieved Goliath searching for missing offspring behind every rival pick. Then there are days when he resembles a lifelike statue placed under the basket.” But of course, you wouldn’t be aware of that. Kareem couldn’t have done for the Celtics what Russell did, and more scoring isn’t what they needed. And Kareem couldn’t have done what Russell did against Chamberlain. Look at what Moses Malone did to Kareem, and then imagine a PRIME Wilt. As it was, a NON-prime Wilt held his own against Kareem. Exactly. Everyone talks about all the Hall of Famers Russell was surrounded with, yet fail to consider how many of them would have been Hall of Famers if they hadn’t played with Russell on a part of the greatest dynasty ever. Case in point, K.C. Jones: career averages of 7.4 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 3.5 apg. Shot 38.7% from the floor and 63.2% from the line as a GUARD. Never averaged more than 9.2 ppg in a single season. HE WAS NEVER EVEN AN NBA ALL-STAR (how do you get to be a Hall of Famer when you were never even an ALL-STAR???). Damn it was good to have been a teammate of Russell for his entire basketball playing career. The NBA All-Defensive Teams didn’t come into existence until the 1968-69 season, which was Russell’s last in the league. Yet he was still First Team All-Defense at 34 years old. See above. And from the 1965-66 season to the 1968-69 season, Chamberlain had the cast, but he could only win once. His teams had a better record every year from that point on, and in ’69, he Baylor and West could be three-fifths of an ALL-TIME TEAM. NO ONE had the Celtics winning. They weren’t even supposed to GET that far because they were a bunch of “old men.” And you tell me that Jordan, Magic, or Bird is going to lose a series after going up 3-1. Russell won when his team had the better record, he won when his team didn’t have the better record, he won when he wasn’t supposed to win (1968, 69). The bottom line is, he just won. See above. And Wilt for one, disagrees: Shaq wouldn’t provide the rebounding and defense the Celtics needed to fuel their fast-break offense, and waiting for him to get down the floor would slow them up. Shaq also couldn’t have played the minutes Russell did, and if he didn’t adjust, he’d foul out. And against the Warriors/Sixers, no way he could keep up with Wilt, who played 48 minutes a game. No, they don’t. Stats don’t even begin to do the man justice. Pure ignorance, spoken by someone who—like the majority of people, unfortunately—didn’t bother to do his research before making a statement. But unfortunately for that little argument, I’m here with the facts to shoot that down. One of the things about Russell is that he made his free throws when winning or losing the game depended on it. “What told me so much about Russell was his foul shooting,” said Fred Schaus, coach of the Los Angeles Lakers for four of their six NBA Finals defeats at the hands of Russell and the Celtics. “For most of the game you wanted him at the line. He was lucky to hit 60 percent. He had terrible form, sort of flinging the ball instead of shooting it. But down the stretch, he never missed a clutch free throw. … Foul shooting was the weakest part of his game, yet it wasn’t something he’d let defeat him.” EXAMPLE: Game 7 of the 1962 NBA Finals against the Los Angeles Lakers. The Celtics won.110-107—a three point margin. Russell scored 30 points and grabbed an NBA Finals single-game record 40 rebounds. You know what else? HE MADE 14 OF 17 FREE THROWS. That’s 82.4 percent. Since you compared his free throw shooting to Shaq, made me an instance where Shaq did that, and in a game of such magnitude. The Lakers kept putting him on the line, and he kept making his free throws. As a matter of fact, Russell shot 75.4 percent from the line for that series. Russell also led the Celtics in free throw attempts during the Finals with 61, 26 more than Tom Heinsohn, and only Elgin Baylor (100) and Jerry West (83) went to the line more in the series. Game 1: 122-108 Boston. Russell: 3-3 Game 2: 129-122 LA. Russell: 3-9 Game 3: 117-115 LA. Russell: 8-11 Game 4: 115-103 Boston. Russell: 5-5 Game 5: 126-121 LA. Russell: 6-6 Game 6: 119-105 Boston. Russell: 7-10 Game 7: 110-107 Boston. Russell: 14-17 Russell was being put on the line and he was making his free throws. Because that’s what he needed to do for them to win. How about another example? 1966 NBA Finals: Russell shoots 74 percent from the line. In the deciding Game 7 which Boston won 95-93, Russell was perfect from the line because in a close game they could have meant the difference between winning and losing. That’s why the man never lost a Game 7 in his life. See, you can get away with stuff like that with other people, but I actually have the evidence to the contrary. Most people say the same thing over and over again, so I compiled the evidence to refute what seem to be the most common statements. But you could have read that in the newspaper: And as far as the Russell vs. Chamberlain argument, Chamberlain and Russell played four Game 7s, all of which were won, of course, by Russell. The Celtics won those games by a total of nine points. Chamberlain missed 24 free throws. Game 7 of the 1962 Eastern Conference Finals — The Celtics won 107-105. Not Chamberlain’s fault here. Chamberlain was 8 of 9 from the free-throw line, and Russell made all five of his attempts. Game 7 of the 1965 Eastern Conference Finals — This is the game where Havlicek stole the ball. I used to have the box score, but I can’t find it at the moment. Game 7 of the 1968 Eastern Conference Finals — Boston won 100-96. Chamberlain was 6 of 15 from the free-throw line (40 percent). Game 7 of the 1969 NBA Finals — In a game the Celtics won by two points—108-106, Chamberlain was 4 of 13 from the free-throw line (30.8 percent). Considering the fact that the Celtics weren’t blowing Chamberlain’s teams out, Chamberlain’s abysmal free-throw shooting hurt. With the exception of the ’62 ECF where he went 8 of 9, things could have been different if he’d simply made his free throws, and he could have won despite Russell’s “superior supporting cast.” But of course, it’s just easier to say that the only reason Russell won is because of his superior supporting cast, and he just went along for the ride. Russell did WHATEVER it took to win. If it meant making free throws, that’s what he did. Russell didn’t cost the Celtics games with poor free throw shooting. Another reason why Russell’s better than Chamberlain, who for three straight years couldn’t even shoot 40 percent from the free throw line in the playoffs. I was going to cite this very instance. There are a couple others too, but unfortunately by computer crashed in the past, and I’ve had to painstakingly start from scratch in putting everything back together again. That’s a bald-faced lie. As part of a project I was working on, I compiled the top 137 single-season rebounding averages in NBA history, which extends to the cutoff point of 14 rebounds-per-game. I have that list in front of me and am looking at it. Nowhere is Artis Gilmore’s name. I present to you Gilmore’s rebounding numbers. 13.0 13.1 12.7 9.0 10.1 10.2 12.0 10.3 10.4 8.5 7.1 2.6 3.1 3.0 As we can see, Gilmore NEVER averaged as many rebounds as Russell. His rebounding numbers were closely matched by his peers? He and Wilt were the only ones rebounding like that, so that’s also a lie. An average of 20 or more rebounds per game was achieved 25 times in NBA history. Russell achieved it 10 times, Chamberlain achieved it 10 times, Jerry Lucas did it twice, Nate Thurmond did it twice, and Bob Pettit did it once. The two times Thurmond did it was in 65 and 51 games, one of Lucas’ times was in 66 games. If you’re talking about Gilmore while he was in the ABA: 17.8 17.6 18.3 16.2 15.5 Russell’s career low rebounding average was 18.6 in his next-to-last season, when he was 33. So the best a 25-year-old Artis Gilmore could do was 0.3 away from Russell’s career low when he got when he was 33. Okay… I already showed concrete evidence that Russell didn’t “suck” at free-throw shooting when winning and losing hinged on it. So you’re saying that Russell’s rebounding only marginally stood out among his elite peers when the only man who rebounded like he did was Chamberlain. CAREER REBOUNDS PER GAME Chamberlain 22.9 Russell 22.5 Bob Pettit 16.2 Jerry Lucas 15.6 Nate Thurmond 15.0 Wes Unseld 14.0 Walt Bellamy 13.7 Dave Cowens 13.6 Elgin Baylor 13.5 George Mikan 13.4 Yeah, Russell’s rebounding was only marginally better than his peers… Wrong. The Celtics didn’t need more scoring. The Celtics were leading the league in scoring before Russell got there, and they went 11-17 in the playoffs. As one player said about the Celtics: “When you played the Celtics, Cousy would get 20 and Sharman and Macauley would get their 20, but you still could beat them by 20.” Look at the top offensive teams in the league and where they are right now. Will adding more offense make them better and win more?
everyone needs to read post 139 in this thread. I tried to post it, I don't know what's wrong. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=97308&page=7&pp=20 just the beginning of the post, which is hands down the best I've ever read on a sports topic
I hope you realize Shaq is the sole reason for why Zone defenses are being used today and not hand checks.
Quoted for stupidity. Were you even following the NBA back in 2001, rookie? The zone defense was designed to reduce the amount of isolation play in the NBA. And Hakeem patented the iso postup / kickout play long before Shaq ever got around to it. And hand checks?? The hand check rule was designed to prevent guards from putting their hands all over the opponent. It was Derek Harper if anyone who made that rule possible, because he mugged Kenny Smith up the court on every play of the 1994 NBA Finals and they made the new handcheck rule that very offseason. But In the paint, post players can and do use their hands to defend.
Hey, that's pretty cool. I can pick out a stretch of a season where Yao Ming was the most dominant basketball player I've seen since Shaq and Hakeem. What's the point? This is like the Robert Horry for Hall of Fame guys saying he can hit game winning shots and is clutch. Or me picking out several games where Shaq may have shot FT's well. That's awesome. But why couldn't he do that all season and for his career? Because he is not what that post chose to cherry-pick. It would be another thing if Russell had a great FG% and didn't score much - then I wouldn't necessarily be able to argue definitively that the man couldn't score if he wanted to. But when I can point to the fact that, for an entire season he had poor FG%, that is proof the man wasn't a good shooter. And before anyone starts by telling me "he turned it up when it counted most", here are his career playoff shooting percentage numbers - not cherry-picked series numbers : FG : 43% (less than his regular season average) FT : 60% (believe it or not, higher than his regular season average) I go back to my early response to this weak defense : if you're a good shooter, you're a good shooter, period. You don't have to cherry-pick 4 or 5 series where you shot or scored well. For his career (a much higher sampling, mind you), his FG% and FT%.... sucked.
I agree that Russell sucked as a FT shooter. However, that poster made a good point about him hitting them when it mattered. Yes you can pick a stretch of Yao Ming doing something he doesn't normally do when it leads to winning a title, which Russell kept winning. I think the posters point was that even though this was a weakness, it never stopped them from winning a title...and in some cases, him stepping up in that area is one of the main reasons why they won the title. He gave specific examples of this, and also gave specific examples that showed how sucking in that area for Wilt cost his team championships.
did horry win mvps, did he lead his team in scoring and rebounding. quick making that analogy, you're smarter than that, the bottom line is that they won, so he could have shot a better percentage, what improvement would that have done for the team? for his career sampling, he won. is this not the most important stat?
the hilarious thing about this thread and the one I linked is that some of these same people are the ones who complained about francis for not making his teamates better, but they want to criticize the guy who was arguable the greatest team player ever because he doesn't have the stats.
last point about me linking that thread, its clear that you are still bothered by the way that guy handed it to you and the other russell dectractors. I'm not trying to be a jerk, the guy is clearly writer or something. he referenced in his post all the research he did. so you and I can sit here and argue about fg% which is the only argument you have btw, but it is clear that it takes a lot more than look up a few stats 40 years later to determine his effectiveness. you can't argue what he did in those individual games, that is the most telling evidence regardless of if he didn't do that all season. maybe he was saving himself, maybe he didn't shoot close to the basket as not to clog the lane, maybe it was the offense they played. bottom line, you or i don't know what the situation was. and that being said, when someone clearly shows what he did when it counted, hanging on to one stat (fg%) becomes petty, especially if you aren't going to do the research he did for that post. so just bow of the argument with him. I think everyone agrees that he made his point the most effectively.
Sorry. But you're evading the fact that you're using selective portions of a career to override the overall career stats. That is my Horry analogy. Yes, I'm smarter than the incorrect analogy you gave me credit for. Sorry, that is not the bottom line simply because that isn't what is being debated. The question was is he overrated, not "did he win?" Of course they won - no one denies that, but are you actually trying to tell me that shooting a better percentage would not help anyone? Are you seriously saying he shot badly because he didn't feel like being a better shooter? And where do you get that "he could have shot a better percentage"? How do you come to this conclusion? The point is not that "he could have" - the point and fact is that "he didn't". If the best defense you have is "he could have if he wanted to", then I could say that about anybody with nothing to back it up.
No, it's just comical that you'd put more value in a handful of games over an entire career. I don't deny his research. He found stretches of games where Russell shot well. I found a career where he didn't. Peak-a-boo. Yes, of course. He was saving his field goals for the post-season. Wouldn't want to use up all those made field goals early in the season, so hey "I'll miss all of them at the beginning of the season". But wait... here is where you and he would be wrong again. His postseason FG% AS A WHOLE did not go up. Ouch. Research that. Would you like me to re-post his shooting percentages again from "when it counted"? Of course you wouldn't. Is this how you run and hide when you can't defend your point?
does winning not enter into the coversation when debating who's best. what's the goal, to shoot a high fg% or to win? the point the guy made is valid, what does shooting a higher % do for his team, makes them win by that much more points? as far as coming to the conclusion that he could have shot better, he did it when it mattered most. does the fact that he may have done it against the best competition at the most clutch time allow me to come to that conclusion
a handfull of games, yeah, just the freaking championships but wait, he still won, he did what he needed to do. wilt has all the stats in the world, he had ridiculously good teamates as pointed out playing one time with the west and baylor, I'm sure the fans appreciated the fg%, because we know that's the goal of the game. you're missing the point, i couldn't care less, because he has the most important stat, well actually two, wins, and clutch
If he's a team player and the greatest team player as many say, then you should subscribe to the theory that teams win games, yet somehow all the "Russel guys" point to HIM being great as the reason the Celtics won. I don't deny his wins. I don't deny he is one of the greats. I do think he's overrated because he did not win alone and his offense was not great. I do not buy into the garbage that "he was good when it mattered". So, what? He took the rest of the season off on offense? Then don't knock the Barkleys, the Battiers, the Dominiques, etc. for taking it off on one end of the court. And give props to Hakeem as being better than Russell because he dominated on both ends in a more athletic era - hence the belief that Russell is often overrated. Again.... "the guy" didn't win alone. Russell's defense was great - possibly elite in any era. His offense was not. And I proved to you he did not. Your assertion is WRONG. His FG% went DOWN in the playoffs. His FT% went up about 4% to a whopping 60%. This CANNOT be debated - it is fact. Here's something for you to ponder : if his FG% and FT% were so good in the stretch of games posted, how horrible must they have been in the rest of the playoffs for his overall averages to still be so bad? Can we do some research on that? I mean seriously : "I"m gonna suck until the Finals. I've made a conscious effort not to give a flip for the rest of the season, but I'll turn it on in the Finals". Most people say they can turn off their shot attempts, their scoring, their handling of the ball to save energy, but I'll be damned if I've ever heard anyone say "I'm going to conserve my ability to make a shot until it matters". You guys are reaching. Also, when you say people are hanging onto one stat to make a case against him. The case is that he was a great only on one side of the ball and those few stats we're using prove that case. Since his offensive abilities were nowhere near the level of a Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem, Kareem, etc. many think he is overrated. Put Kareem on those teams. Put Hakeem on those teams. They would've won.
I think there should be a distinction between "best player" and "greatest player". Russell would be an example, for more obvious examples, we can look at Bob Cousy and George Mikan; those guys on ability would not be considered that high on who is the "best player", especially Mikan because he dominated short white guys, and Cousy would drop significantly below Maravich, Isiah Thomas, Stockton, etc when he is typically considered greater than Maravich and about comparable in greatness Isiah/Stockton. But they are considered greats because they are the progenitors of modern big man play and guard play, respectively. Wilt is probably the best player of all time, but his choking/quitting/whatever episodes in the playoffs detract from his greatness. Perhaps Russell's abilities are a bit overrated (people looking for mitigating factors/excuses for his offense), but I don't think his greatness is overrated at all. If his offensive game were a bit better, he'd be the greatest player of all time; in fact the NBA named him the GOAT in 1980 with its 35th anniversary team.
the teamates issue has been addressed numerous times, if you look at pure stats alone, hakeem had just as good of teamates hooping with sleepy floyd otis thorpe and vernon maxwell. seriously as bad as the stat you love fg% was, he actually led his team in that stat. so his offense was still arguably the best on his team so to say his offense didn't matter is particularly ridiculous. and the fact is it was still good enough no one said that, fg% isn't about conserving energy. but you still can't argue that his fg% hurt his team. it doesn't matter. and yes, I haven't done the research but I will still argue that the fact that they relied on him more in those Finals games, may have changed the way the offense was run. shaq is limited by defense, so where he has russell on offense, russell has him on defense. he has everyone on defense accept hakeem, but he probably has hakeem beat on being a better team player for a longer period of his career, day one to be exact. he has all these guys on assists, is that not offense?
