Bill Russell really is the Most Underrated Player Eva

I can't imagine that, if the Celts of that era had Hakeem Olajuwon playing alongside them, they would have anything less than the 11 rings they got with Russell.

 

Whoa...you're discounting MJ's rings because of the talent in the league at the time he was playing....and that's why you think Russell, who played against talent nowhere near what MJ played against is the GOAT? Seriously?

Russell was a great, great player. But a center with a career shooting percentage of 44% is not among the top 5 players who have ever played the game, regardless of era.

 

MJ had more points, Hakeem had a LOT more rebounds and blocks, similar in steals, and MJ had more assists. Further consider that big men are inherently more valuable, simply because they are a lot rarer.

FWIW, the only player who actually really could score 50 on any given night was Wilt. The ONLY player, ever. Nobody else even vaguely close.

 

Yea but who was Wilt doing this against? I could score 20 on guys like this:

 

That's kind of the close-out point in most GOAT arguments, because a scoring center who can rebound and play above-average to elite defense is going to outweigh the benefit of having most wings. Most MJ/Bulls fans would hyperventilate, if you pointed out that Bulls would have been just as dominant, if not more dominant with All time great center/bigman or another great wing, like Bird, Magic, Big O, Kobe, or LeBron, they think it's impossible to fathom.

 

I don't know, but he looked like he could still play with that fade away finger he gave Barkley.

 

Is this a continuation of last summer's "continuation" of the same argument? It never gets old, I guess.

 

And on the flip side, replace the Rockets championship teams with Russell. That team isn’t even getting to the WCF. And that’s the problem with Russell. For him to be on a championship team he had to have players on his team that were much better on offense than him. Hakeem did not have these requirements, because he was omnipresent on both sides of the court.

It almost as objective as math to me when you look at these four core comparisons/ratings:
Russell is the best defensive big man of all time, and Hakeem is second.
Hakeem is inarguably a top 4 offensive big man of all time, and Russel doesn’t t even register in the top 10.
It’s likely the Celtics would still win 11 rings with Hakeem instead of Russell.
It’s extremely unlikely the Rockets would win any championships if you replace Hakeem with Russell.

How could this ever add up to someone thinking Russell is better than Hakeem? Can anyone argue these statements above? Can you provide some other points other than ring counting that could help convince me Russell is the better player?

 

kind of like a Ginger-MaryAnn thread

 

For his era, yeah, he was great. But pick him up from back then and drop him off in 2018, he'd be laughed off a competitive NBA court.

 

I just don't see how you can compare a championship in a league with 8 teams to a championship in a league with 30 teams.

There are many reasons why comparisons among eras are fruitless exercises in hypothetical speculation.

The more variables change, the muddier the waters.

We should instead ask ourselves why as humans we seem to cling to the need for hierarchy. This is animal instinct behavior. Rankings. Caste systems. Numerical values. Leaders. Slaves. Kings. Peasants.

All of it is rather meaningless in the end.

 

Sir, I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

Way to break it down, millennial deconstructionist.

(you know i'm kidding)

 

Hes probably the most overrated player ever

 

I WILL NOT GET OFF YOUR LAWN.

 

Dwight Howard would have absolutely dominated 50's-early 60's basketball. Almost Wilt like numbers. Come at me.

 

Seems like the "he's so underrated he's overrated" guys. I get the argument for him, but I wash shocked when I learned the guy shot 44% as a center. I don't have much context for that number, but today, 44% for a center that doesn't shoot jump shots is pathetic... and you add the fact that the average player was way smaller/lighter than... and there were like 8 teams in the league, and he had a ton of superstar teammates...

Never understood people who are outraged when people don't give more respect to Bill Russell. I think there are plenty of other players who have actually been forgotten by history, and have always found the counter-arguments against Bill's legacy as compelling as the pro-points.

 

Massively overrated.

An improved version of Ben Wallace of his time on a loaded team.

The guy sucked on offense.

Put Shaq or Hakeem on that team and they would walk away with 11 rings as well.

You think Russel would take the Rockets team to a title like Hakeem did with what he had? Not a chance.

 

Some of your comparisons, most of yours to be honest are extremely hilarious. Comparing players from so many years past, i mean, technology and game evolves so fast, you can't just put players from 60's to even 90's. They would play in different league alltogether and given you compare all time greats they would obviously play WAY different, i know many of you like to have a stroke of how good or even better Hakeem would be in different era, but whos to say he would be as good on offense in Russells era and that Russell would be as bad on offense in Hakeem's era as he was in his, exactly, but no, lets just take player A from this era put wherever we want and he will play exactly as he did before. That's like saying Jordan would be bad 3 point shooter in today's era

 

I see this thread got bumped and I'm shocked at the amount of ignorant statements related to Russell and his era.

I see quite a few statements discounting his competition, even though he played against Wilt 143 times over 11 seasons. Count up all the great centers Shaq or Dream played against their entire careers and you won't top that number by much. That's not even counting all the other great bigs in the 60's (simply google best centers of the 1960's).

I see quite a few statements saying he was limited offensively, even though he avg 4.3 apg for his career and finished in the top 10 four times.

I also see quite a few statements about players from today dominating back then, even though the rules and what was actually called (by the book) were completely different then. Bigs like Shaq and Howard would probably foul out by halftime. Every guard today would likely be called for traveling or palming the ball on most possessions.

How was Russell overrated when NBA PLAYERS voted him league MVP five times? When a team built around him won 11 times? Maybe we overrate offense since the team that won the most was built around an elite defender?