Bill Russell dead at 88

[Alex_Murphy]

Russell averaged on average 13-15 points a game and averaged on average between 42-45% FG as a big man against plumbers and insurance salesmen. That is pathetic. He did excel in defensive stats along with assists for a big man but at the end of the day he's a glorified Draymond green on all those championship teams and being dubbed the greatest winner of all time

[Bush4Ever.]

Yes, this guy would be the best player in the MLB today by far. That’s why your arguments on basketball are so solid despite your glory days takes on baseball.

You should read what I actually said in that thread.

You aren't remembering it quite right, even in troll mode.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Yeah those 59-win Bucks (85) and HOF stacked Celtics (86 and 87) and Bad Boys (88) were clearly average / below-average teams.

He had to face those teams early on because he was so bad at being a winner during the regular season.

Wrong again... Jordan inherited a team with the second-worst record in the NBA the previous year. Russell inherited a team with the second-Best record, the #1 Offense, and a HOF backcourt... and he got to beat-up on second-rate competition in the first-round while MJ had to face HOF stacked teams.

Keep spinning bush-league.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Russell averaged on average 13-15 points a game and averaged on average between 42-45% FG as a big man against plumbers and insurance salesmen. That is pathetic. He did excel in defensive stats along with assists for a big man but at the end of the day he's a glorified Draymond green on all those championship teams and being dubbed the greatest winner of all time

Russell was often times a border-line liability on Offense, but because he played great Defense against part-time plumbers and salesmen, coupled with the fact that you only had to win one (1) playoff series to get to the Finals, the Celtics were able to win 11 Championships.

But but but... context and perspective has no business in this debate. Only the metrics count... except Finals record of course. That one doesn't matter.

[Alex_Murphy]

Russell averaged on average 13-15 points a game and averaged on average between 42-45% FG as a big man against plumbers and insurance salesmen. That is pathetic. He did excel in defensive stats along with assists for a big man but at the end of the day he's a glorified Draymond green on all those championship teams and being dubbed the greatest winner of all time

Russell was often times a border-line liability on Offense, but because he played great Defense against part-time plumbers and salesmen, coupled with the fact that you only had to win one (1) playoff series to get to the Finals, the Celtics were able to win 11 Championships.

But but but... context and perspective has no business in this debate. Only the metrics count... except Finals record of course. That one doesn't matter.

Wait... U only had to win 1 series to get to the finals?

[Bush4Ever.]

Wrong again... Jordan inherited a team with the second-worst record in the NBA the previous year.

Yes, he made a big, gigantic 11 game difference in the standings. From pure shit to "medium-grade pig slop".

What a winner.

Larry Bird: 32 game turnaround
Tim Duncan: 36 game turnaround
Hakeem: 19 game turnaround
Lebron: 18 game turnaround (as a kid)
Kareem: 29 game turnaround
Shaq: 20 game turnaround

Jordan: 11 game turnaround

lol

Then from 1985 to 1987...a whopping two game improvement. That's about what Cade Cunningham managed last year for the Pistons.

Of course then Pippen came to save the day (10 game improvement from where Jordan had led them in 1987, btw) and it took off from there...but still...Jordan lags as a pure winner behind a number of people.

Strictly speaking, if you can't obtain a winning record without a top 30 all-time player by your side...you might not be the best winner in history.

Luka has already done that the last three years in a row. From ages 20 to 22. But Jordan couldn't do that ONCE from ages 21 to 23. Just stone cold facts.

This post is fair and objective.

[Uncontroversial]

0 winning series or seasons without pippen......

how can that be the GOAT?

[thedangerouskitchen]

Russell averaged on average 13-15 points a game and averaged on average between 42-45% FG as a big man against plumbers and insurance salesmen. That is pathetic. He did excel in defensive stats along with assists for a big man but at the end of the day he's a glorified Draymond green on all those championship teams and being dubbed the greatest winner of all time

Russell was often times a border-line liability on Offense, but because he played great Defense against part-time plumbers and salesmen, coupled with the fact that you only had to win one (1) playoff series to get to the Finals, the Celtics were able to win 11 Championships.

But but but... context and perspective has no business in this debate. Only the metrics count... except Finals record of course. That one doesn't matter.

Wait... U only had to win 1 series to get to the finals?

Yup... during Russell's first 9 years in the league.

It's almost laughable how easy Russ had it.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Wrong again... Jordan inherited a team with the second-worst record in the NBA the previous year.

Yes, he made a big, gigantic 11 game difference in the standings. From pure shit to "medium-grade pig slop".

What a winner.

Larry Bird: 32 game turnaround
Tim Duncan: 36 game turnaround
Hakeem: 19 game turnaround
Lebron: 18 game turnaround (as a kid)
Kareem: 29 game turnaround
Shaq: 20 game turnaround

Jordan: 11 game turnaround

Russell: 5 game turnaround.



Yet the Celtics were able to win a Championship... further proving how woefully weak and embarrassing the league was back then.

Bush: Jordan got to beat-up on weak first/second round teams
TDK: Jordan had to face the juggernaut Celts and HOF stacked Pistons in the first/second rounds
Bush: Jordan couldn't lead his team to a better record
TDK: Jordan inherited a 31-win bottom-feeder while Russ inherited the second best team
Bush: but-but-but Jordan only led the Bulls to 11 more wins
TDK: Russ only led the Celtics to 5 more wins

Bush: I'd better give it up and wave the white-flag already.

[vcsgrizzfan]

Wrong again... Jordan inherited a team with the second-worst record in the NBA the previous year.

Yes, he made a big, gigantic 11 game difference in the standings. From pure shit to "medium-grade pig slop".

What a winner.

Larry Bird: 32 game turnaround
Tim Duncan: 36 game turnaround
Hakeem: 19 game turnaround
Lebron: 18 game turnaround (as a kid)
Kareem: 29 game turnaround
Shaq: 20 game turnaround

Jordan: 11 game turnaround

Russell: 5 game turnaround.



Yet the Celtics were able to win a Championship... further proving how woefully weak and embarrassing the league was back then.

Bush: Jordan got to beat-up on weak first/second round teams
TDK: Jordan had to face the juggernaut Celts and HOF stacked Pistons in the first/second rounds
Bush: Jordan couldn't lead his team to a better record
TDK: Jordan inherited a 31-win bottom-feeder while Russ inherited the second best team
Bush: but-but-but Jordan only led the Bulls to 11 more wins
TDK: Russ only led the Celtics to 5 more wins

Bush: I'd better give it up and wave the white-flag already.

The 5 game turnaround is misleading. Russell didn't join the Celtics until after the 1956 Melbourne Olympics so he missed 24 games and had to integrate into the team late.

The Celtics also traded their all star Center to get Russell. Ed Macauley had been an allstar 5 consecutive seasons for the Celts and all NBA twice. He was an allstar again for the team the Celtics traded him to, St.Louis.

No matter though, he turned them into a title winner from perennial chumps.

[Bush4Ever.]

Russell: 5 game turnaround.

Then...autism

False equivalence. Logical and statistical fallacy.

It's easier to elevate a bottom-feeding team than a top-team in terms of absolute win totals, not to mention Russell didn't even join up right away (look it up).

Learn basic math/statistics.

Jordan compared to the players above were all playing on teams with similar win totals prior to the rookie season. Russell (like Magic...did you wonder why I didn't include him?) did not. Kobe did not. Etc...

Compare like terms. Don't be autistic. Or if you are going to be autistic, at least channel it into learning math.

The stone-cold facts are:

1. Jordan elevated his team LESS than every single top 10 player who a) played on a team that was previously miserable, and b) taking a leading role

2. Jordan had 0 winning seasons prior to Pippen

3. Jordan had 0 playoff series wins prior to Pippen

4. Jordan's absence marked a net decrease of two regular season wins 1993 to 1994. By the way, ancient Larry Bird's absence in 1989 saw a 15 game drop.

5. Jordan was 6-18 against the Celtics and Bad Boy Pistons in the playoffs from 1986 to 1990 (i.e.--when the Celtics/Pistons were still on form).

6. Jordan had the worst FG percentage on the Dream Team among the pros.

7. Jordan won nothing in college as a lead player

You should aim for something a bit more modest like "Jordan was a great winner who dominated like no other modern player once he figured it out, got HOF level supporting talent and a GOAT-Tier coach". Not this "GOAT winner" stuff. That just tanks your credibility right off the bat.

This post is fair and objective.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Sorry bush-league but I'm not reading all that drivel since you ignored 95% of my previous post.

56 Celts: 39 Wins
57 Celts: 44 Wins

Note: You already established the fact that context and perspective do not factor into your arguments.

44 - 39 = 5.

Case-closed.

Cold-hard facts are not your friend tonight.

[Bush4Ever.]

Three full seasons isn't enough for the GOAT winner to simply get his team above .500.

Lebron did that as a 20 year old.

lmao

[thedangerouskitchen]

PS: Speaking of cold-hard facts.

57 Celts with Rookie Russ: 28-20 / .583%
57 Celts withOut Rookie Russ: 16-8 / .666%

So the Celtics were actually better withOut Russell??? Hmm... who woulda thunk it.

[Sudanese Sensation]

Bush and Grizz, what would peak Russell look like in 2022? Thank you in advance.

[Titan18]

Russell averaged on average 13-15 points a game and averaged on average between 42-45% FG as a big man against plumbers and insurance salesmen. That is pathetic. He did excel in defensive stats along with assists for a big man but at the end of the day he's a glorified Draymond green on all those championship teams and being dubbed the greatest winner of all time

Russell was often times a border-line liability on Offense, but because he played great Defense against part-time plumbers and salesmen, coupled with the fact that you only had to win one (1) playoff series to get to the Finals, the Celtics were able to win 11 Championships.

But but but... context and perspective has no business in this debate. Only the metrics count... except Finals record of course. That one doesn't matter.

Wait... U only had to win 1 series to get to the finals?

Yea, you just had to win 3 games against this guy to make the finals back in the day. Old glory days Bush, Grizz, and Rob think it’s a great accomplishment though.

[Bush4Ever.]

Bush and Grizz, what would peak Russell look like in 2022? Thank you in advance.

That's so hard to say. There really is no analog to Russell in NBA history and there is a 60 year gap in evolution.

A piece of that is probably due to the era. No one in 2022 is going to be so defensively dominant they swing bottom-tier offenses to NBA titles. It's just not possible. Even Hakeem didn't do that. Just like no one is going to hit more home runs than entire teams in 2022...just not possible.

Under the assumption he's growing up in the modern era but still retaining his "essence" so to speak...

Top-tier rebounder (top 5 every year, sometimes top 1)

Willing and competent passer (not star level, but something closer to a Draymond mold...maybe not quite as fluid)

Someone getting into the mid and maybe high teens in points, but almost exclusively off of broken offense, PNRs, offensive rebounds, etc...I see him shooting almost exclusively high percentage shots instead of shitty hooks and all the other low percentage shots they took from the post in those days.

I do think he would still be a top flight defensive player by impact. He could obviously handle everything at the rim, but would also be able to challenge in space and play the horizontal game perfectly (for a big). I don't know if he would have been on Hakeem's level in absolute ability, but I bet it would be close. Russell was a crazy good athlete in 1960s, even by today's standards. Seeing him switch on/off smalls/bigs in 2022 would be a thing of beauty.

Top-tier intangibles, for whatever that is worth to some people.

I can't think of anyone with that combination of attributes in today's game.

But he would definitely be better than Scottie Pippen, Derrick Rose, and DeMar DeRozan. Possibly better than Michael Jordan as well because he wouldn't have to retire for mental health reasons like a snowflake in the middle of his prime.

[thedangerouskitchen]

The only way Bill Russell averages 17-19 PPG today is if he takes 15-18 shots a game, which just isn't happening in this 3-point happy league. Remember... he wouldn't be going up against part-time plumbers and salesmen like he did back in the 50's/60's. On the contrary, he'd be facing players/teams today who would destroy the 90's Bulls Dynasty (or so we've been told in other threads).

Therefore, the real answer here is:

8-10 PPG
12-15 REB
3-5 AST

Defense is anyone's guess since Russell would be forced to guard the perimeter half the time (if not more)... and there's no evidence to suggest he could play at an elite level game-in, game-out against those "vastly superior" ballhandlers / shooters. Remember, even today's scrubs would completely destroy the 90's (or so we've been told in other threads), so it stands to reason they would have averaged 100 PPG in Russ' era.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt (with his elite athleticism for "his era"), the most realistic answer here is Russ would be an average to above-average Defender... he clearly wouldn't be leading any teams to Championships though, that's for sure.

In fact, in today's perimeter / Offensive-oriented NBA there's a good chance Russell doesn't even start... in which case his numbers would be even lower.

[elartman1973]

This TDK vs Bush battle is boring as shit and nobody is enlightened by any of thier babbling.
They should suck each other off and call.it a day and save us from further torture

[Sudanese Sensation]

Bush and Grizz, what would peak Russell look like in 2022? Thank you in advance.

That's so hard to say. There really is no analog to Russell in NBA history and there is a 60 year gap in evolution.

A piece of that is probably due to the era. No one in 2022 is going to be so defensively dominant they swing bottom-tier offenses to NBA titles. It's just not possible. Even Hakeem didn't do that. Just like no one is going to hit more home runs than entire teams in 2022...just not possible.

Under the assumption he's growing up in the modern era but still retaining his "essence" so to speak...

Top-tier rebounder (top 5 every year, sometimes top 1)

Willing and competent passer (not star level, but something closer to a Draymond mold...maybe not quite as fluid)

Someone getting into the mid and maybe high teens in points, but almost exclusively off of broken offense, PNRs, offensive rebounds, etc...I see him shooting almost exclusively high percentage shots instead of shitty hooks and all the other low percentage shots they took from the post in those days.


I do think he would still be a top flight defensive player by impact. He could obviously handle everything at the rim, but would also be able to challenge in space and play the horizontal game perfectly (for a big). I don't know if he would have been on Hakeem's level in absolute ability, but I bet it would be close. Russell was a crazy good athlete in 1960s, even by today's standards. Seeing him switch on/off smalls/bigs in 2022 would be a thing of beauty.

Top-tier intangibles, for whatever that is worth to some people.

I can't think of anyone with that combination of attributes in today's game.

But he would definitely be better than Scottie Pippen, Derrick Rose, and DeMar DeRozan. Possibly better than Michael Jordan as well because he wouldn't have to retire for mental health reasons like a snowflake in the middle of his prime.

Bam Adebayo with more interior defense and less offense. Maybe it's just not a good idea to rip icons from their era and put them in other eras.