Bill Russell: Legend

[tbone_ 14106]

Saw this recently on Netflix. I thought it was really good.

 

As someone who didn’t grow up a huge basketball fan, I have to admit that I didn’t know all that much about him or his time with the Celtics.

 

After watching the doc, my question for those in the know is this: how the fuck is mr 11 titles in 13 years not considered the GOAT in the NBA? Is it just recency bias and Nike ads?

[TrashMaster G 17541]

For a minute there I was afraid he died again.

[Huckleberry 32845]

2 hours ago, tbone_ said:

 

Saw this recently on Netflix. I thought it was really good.

 

As someone who didn’t grow up a huge basketball fan, I have to admit that I didn’t know all that much about him or his time with the Celtics.

 

After watching the doc, my question for those in the know is this: how the fuck is mr 11 titles in 13 years not considered the GOAT in the NBA? Is it just recency bias and Nike ads?

Sports fans and media did not yet ascribe team success to the star player on each team in his day. You can decide for yourself if that's a good or bad thing. But if you don't want to be a giant dunderhead you will conclude that it's good not to ascribe a team's success solely to the star player.

[tbone_ 14106]

Are you saying they could have just grabbed any other center of the era and still won 11/13?

[Michael Knight 12976]

33 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

Are you saying they could have just grabbed any other center of the era and still won 11/13?

Depends on if that center was Wilt Chamberlain or not

[tbone_ 14106]

Wilt could absolutely play. But he didn’t have the fortitude to go 11/13 and coach for 2 of the 11.

[ztejas 43411]

There were less than 10 teams in the league for all of those titles save a couple seasons and Boston had like half of the best players. Russell was a great player and it was a crazy run but some years all they really had to do was not fuck anything up to win the championship. They also only had to win two best of seven series most years - and in the early seasons like 1957 and 1959 there were only 6 teams in the league. 

Regardless, it's impressive as shit, but it's nothing like the MJ double three-peat or LeBron's Finals streak.

[ztejas 43411]

4 hours ago, longhornmatt said:

And in Russell's case, even in his own era Wilt Chamberlain was clearly a better player. 

Disagree. Russell was more conducive towards winning despite the stats. Wilt was a legendary me-first guy that didn't care as much about winning. 

I rate basketball players on how much they move the needle when it comes to winning games. Russell moved that needle further. 

[Huckleberry 32845]

1 hour ago, ztejas said:

Disagree. Russell was more conducive towards winning despite the stats. Wilt was a legendary me-first guy that didn't care as much about winning. 

I rate basketball players on how much they move the needle when it comes to winning games. Russell moved that needle further. 

This post is funny when the guy you're replying to supplied proof that it's incorrect. Chamberlain was more efficient and nearly matched Russell in assists even though Russell had superior teammates. In fact, that's the way that Russell was more conducive toward winning, by having better teammates. Weird how that works.

[ztejas 43411]

5 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

This post is funny when the guy you're replying to supplied proof that it's incorrect. Chamberlain was more efficient and nearly matched Russell in assists even though Russell had superior teammates. In fact, that's the way that Russell was more conducive toward winning, by having better teammates. Weird how that works.

This is one of those instances where the person that you're replying to actually knows more than you do. 

I mean, I appreciate the smarmy response, but to be honest I don't give a fuck what your take on Russell vs. Wilt is. You aren't changing my opinion. 

Take it easy Huck.