Originally Posted by
Olympic Fan
Which record is that?
We've had this discussion several times. Michael Jordan is the product of the ESPN hype machine. Russell, who played long before there was a Sportscenter, was a far more dominant player than Michael Jordan.
And, yes, Russell changed the game as much or more than Michael Jordan ever did (the modern goaltending rules are a product of his shotblocking prowess).
Let's put it in simple terms: His teams won. They won far more often that Jordan's teams (or Wilt's teams or Oscar's teams).
Yeah, he had good teammates -- but so did the other guys. Look it up, Philadelphia was actually more successful before Wilt joined the team than the Celtics were before Russell joined the team. The Warriors won the 1956 NBA title without Wilt. The Celtics had never before reached the NBA finals (much less won a title) before Russell joined the team at midseason in 1956-57 (he joined at midseason so he could represent the US in the '56 Olympic games). After that, they never stopped winning until Russell retired. The '56 champion Warriors didn't win again, even after adding Wilt, until Russell retired.
It's worth noting that his San Francisco teams won back to back national titles in his last two years there -- that's more NCAA titles than Jordan, Wilt, Oscar, Jerry West or Larry Bird won COMBINED. Yeah, KC Jones was a teammate for the first title, but Jones was ineligible for the '56 playoffs.
Just for fun, someday look up Jordan's teammates in 1983 and 1984 and compare them with Russell's teammates in 55 and 56. You might be surprised what you find.
Let's see ... Russell was the best player on teams that won two straight NCAA titles, the Olympic Gold and Celtics teams that won the NBA title in 11 of his 13 seasons. The Celtics, which had never won anything before Russell, won the NBA title in his first two seasons (then he got hurt and the Celtics lost in the finals), then they won seven more titles in a row. They also won in his final year when Wilt faked an injury and hid on the bench. And the year after Russell retired, the Celtics -- with all those great players who are supposed to be the reason he won so many titles -- finished below .500 and failed to make the playoffs.
Russell is the greatest winner in the history of team sports -- his teams won the ultimate championship in 13 of his last 15 seasons (14 of 16 if you count the Olympics).
Jordan was a great player and a great winner too. We all remember that he hit the game-winner to help Dean Smith win his first championshp in 1982. But do you remember that James Worthy was the star of that team (and the Final Four MVP) and it also had three-time All-American Sam Perkins.
In the two college seasons after Worthy left, Jordan constantly choked in postseason -- to NC State and Duke in the ACC Tournament semifinals; to Georgia in the Elite Eight and to Indiana in the Sweet 16.
Eventually, Jordan became a winner in the NBA, after a long apprenticeship. After the Bulls added Scottie Pippen. In contrast, Russell won right away and kept winning. Yeah, he won with Cousy (who had never won anything before Russell arrived) ... and he kept winning when Cousy retired. He won before Havlicek arrived and after he arrived.
Your comment that Oscar and Wilt were better than Russell suggest that you are mesmerized by individual stats -- the way Oscar and Wilt were. They put up great numbers. But they weren't winners. Oscar never got Cincinnati to the national title game, but they got there three straight times in the three years after he left (winning two titles). Can you really argue that a guy's the greatest player ever when his team gets better after he leaves?
Oscar won one NBA title, when late in his career, he finally hooked up with Kareem Abdul Jabbar.
Wilt choked against UNC in the 1957 title game and he was constantly beaten by Russell. Yeah, he had great numbers against the Celtics, but at crunch time, Russell ALWAYS shut him down. (Russell explained in his autobiography that during the game, he'd let Wilt get the ball where he wanted and take the shots he wanted -- until the game was on the line and Russell would beat him to the spot and deny him the shots he wanted. It always worked and Wilt -- being the mental midget he was -- never figured it out).
My point is that the object of the game is to win, not to score a lot of individual points or pile up a lot of stats. Who is to say that the things Russell did -- his ability to dominate games at the defensive end and on the boards -- were not more important than Jordan's ability to score points? The record that you talk about would seem to indicate that Russell's contributions led to more victories than Jordan's contributions.
Am I right that Russell is the greatest player in basketball history? I think so, but I'm not so arrogant as you are -- and so many other children of the ESPN era are -- to think that my opinion is fact and there's no room for debate.
Just understand that this IS a matter of opinion and there are plenty of varying opinions out there -- and it's not so crazy to suggest that Bill Russell and not Michael Jordan is not the greatest player of all time.