Michael Jordan led his team to 6 NBA Championships as the clear best player, something that no one else can match or exceed, except for Bill Russell, the most successful winner in the history of team sports. It stands to reason that Russell would therefore have a case to holding the title of the greatest player of all-time. I wouldn't have a problem with someone making that claim, but there are three main reasons that Jordan deserves this title more than Russell does. Let's break them down.
1. Jordan Was Dominant on Both Offense and Defense Throughout His Career
Although Jordan does have a case for the best perimeter defender of all-time. Russell's defense was definitely a lot better than Jordan's, as no perimeter player could provide the rebounding or rim protection that Russell did. As for his man-to-man defense, Russell decreased Wilt Chamberlain's scoring production from his regular season average in all 8 of their playoff meetings.
However, Russell only picked it up on the offensive end a few times in his career, whereas Jordan had to dominate on both offense and defense nearly his entire career. Russell may be a lot better defensively than Jordan was, but the disparity between Jordan's offensive game and Russell's is even greater. Jordan still offered much more defensively than Russell did offensively.
Russell led the 1962 Celtics in scoring during the playoffs at 22.4 ppg on 46% and led the 1965 and 1966 Celtics in assists during the playoffs at 6.3 and 5.0 apg, respectively. He also led them in assists when they lost in the 1967 Playoffs with 5.6 apg. Outside of those four years, Russell never led the team in scoring or assists during the playoffs. Even in the 1965, 1966, and 1967 Playoffs, his scoring production was far below his team's leading scorer. In those three playoffs when he led the team in assists, Russell scored 11.8 ppg, 5.7 ppg, and 16.8 ppg less than his team's leading scorer.
 |
| Russell had the luxury of coasting on offense for the majority of his career, but Jordan never coasted on either end |
Whereas Russell had the luxury of slacking off on offense for most of his career, Jordan never had that luxury on defense, as he more often than not took on the task of shutting down the other team's best perimeter player, in and outside of title years, and did a great job pretty much every time. To see this in detail, check out Section 21, as it would be too long to list here. This section includes video footage and statistical data to back up Jordan's claim to the best perimeter defender of all-time.
Russell has a case to being the best defensive player ever, but on the other side of the ball, Jordan is clearly the best offensive player of all-time as well. Jordan averaged 40+ ppg in 5 different playoff series, something that nobody else has done more than once (Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Rick Barry, Bernard King). And of course, Jordan has the highest regular season and playoff career scoring average in history. Even at age 38 in the 2001/02 season, Jordan was averaging 25-6-5 before his knee injury for 46 games, something that only Tracy McGrady would accomplish at season's end.
2. Jordan Carried a Bigger Load in His Championships
Because of the fact that Jordan had to always be dominant both offensively and defensively, whereas Russell only led his team offensively a few times, and not to the degree that Jordan did, it's clear that Jordan had to contribute more to his championships than Russell did. Let's take a deeper look at this. We've already mentioned Jordan's defensive responsibilities, which are detailed in Section 21, so we have to look further into his offensive contributions.
Jordan is the only player in history to score/assist at least 50% of his team's points in multiple NBA Finals, assuming that all assists count as 2 points. He did this three times in 1991, 1993, and 1997. LeBron is the only other player to do this in one NBA Finals, in 2015, but on 33 shots/game on just under 40% FG, and without having any responsibility on defense, whereas Jordan was great defensively in all Finals appearances. Nobody has ever contributed as much to their team's offense in multiple Finals like Jordan did.
Jordan also led the Bulls in all 5 main categories (points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks) for the last 3 rounds of the 1997 Playoffs, at age 34 no less. The only other player to carry a larger load on a championship team is Hakeem Olajuwon in 1994, when he led the Rockets in 5/5 categories for all 4 rounds, though Jordan was barely short of doing so in 1997, being 0.53 rpg and 0.05 bpg short.
 |
| Jordan carried larger loads in his championships than Russell did, most notably in 1997 when he led the Bulls in 5/5 categories for the last 3 rounds, a load that only Hakeem surpassed in 1994 |
No player in history has led a team in all categories for 3 or 4 rounds as Jordan and Hakeem did in these respective playoff runs, which means they carried the 2 largest individual loads out of any championship team in NBA history. This further confirms that Jordan had to do noticeably more for his championship teams than Russell, as Hakeem is the only other player who can say he did that. If you want a more detailed look at these specific runs by Jordan and Hakeem, check Section 26.
Jordan also led the 1997 Bulls to the championship with only one other double digit scorer on his team, Scottie Pippen at 19 ppg but on a sub-par 42% FG. Nobody else on the Bulls could even reach a mere 8 ppg for the playoffs. This is the only time in history that any player has led his team to the championship with only one other double digit scorer. Russell never had to shoulder such a huge burden in any of his runs. As stated earlier, Russell's defensive contributions were much greater than Jordan's but Jordan's offensive contributions and burden were astronomically higher than Russell's, and Jordan could not coast on defense like Russell coasted on offense most of his career.
Title teams with sub-70 PPG supporting casts for the overall playoffs
Post-1954 (Shot-Clock Era)
12. 2002 Lakers - 69.4 PPG
11. 2000 Lakers - 69.0 PPG
10. 1994 Rockets - 68.3 PPG
9. 2006 Heat - 67.8 PPG
8. 1993 Bulls - 67.3 PPG
7. 2012 Heat - 67.0 PPG
6. 1996 Bulls - 66.7 PPG
Title teams with sub-66 PPG supporting casts for the overall playoffs
Post-1954 (Shot Clock Era)
5. 1992 Bulls - 65.9 PPG
4. 2004 Pistons - 65.6 PPG
3. 1999 Spurs - 65.2 PPG
2. 1997 Bulls - 61.5 PPG
1. 1998 Bulls - 60.8 PPG
In the shot-clock era, Jordan has
- 5 of the 8 lowest scoring playoff supporting casts for title teams
- 4 of the 6 lowest scoring playoff supporting casts for title teams
- 3 of the 5 lowest scoring playoff supporting casts for title teams
- The 2 lowest scoring playoff supporting casts for title teams
Post-1954 (Shot-Clock Era)
12. 2002 Lakers - 69.4 PPG
11. 2000 Lakers - 69.0 PPG
10. 1994 Rockets - 68.3 PPG
9. 2006 Heat - 67.8 PPG
8. 1993 Bulls - 67.3 PPG
7. 2012 Heat - 67.0 PPG
6. 1996 Bulls - 66.7 PPG
Title teams with sub-66 PPG supporting casts for the overall playoffs
Post-1954 (Shot Clock Era)
5. 1992 Bulls - 65.9 PPG
4. 2004 Pistons - 65.6 PPG
3. 1999 Spurs - 65.2 PPG
2. 1997 Bulls - 61.5 PPG
1. 1998 Bulls - 60.8 PPG
In the shot-clock era, Jordan has
- 5 of the 8 lowest scoring playoff supporting casts for title teams
- 4 of the 6 lowest scoring playoff supporting casts for title teams
- 3 of the 5 lowest scoring playoff supporting casts for title teams
- The 2 lowest scoring playoff supporting casts for title teams
- Jordan is the only player to lead multiple top 10 lowest-scoring playoff supporting casts among title teams
The only player to lead a lesser scoring supporting cast to the NBA Finals than the 1997 or 1998 Bulls is Allen Iverson on the 2001 Sixers. The 2001 Sixers' teammates outside of Iverson scored 60.3 PPG in the 22 playoff games Iverson played. Game 3 against the Bucks in which Iverson did not play is excluded from this calculation.
The 1997 and 1998 Bulls also have the two lowest scoring supporting casts of any post-1954 NBA Finals team to win the championship.
1994 Rockets - 59.3 ppg
2006 Heat - 58.2 ppg
1999 Spurs - 57.4 ppg
1997 Bulls - 55.5 ppg
1998 Bulls - 54.5 ppg
2006 Heat - 58.2 ppg
1999 Spurs - 57.4 ppg
1997 Bulls - 55.5 ppg
1998 Bulls - 54.5 ppg
The only sub-56 ppg supporting casts to win an NBA Finals since 1954 were led by Jordan at 34 and 35 years old. Jordan is the only player to win multiple NBA Finals in the shot-clock era with sub-60 PPG supporting casts.
3. Jordan Played Far Superior Competition, and Russell's Championships Came Under Far Easier Circumstances
This is the main reason Jordan's has a stronger case than Russell as the greatest player of all-time. Russell is the only player to lead his team to more championships as the team's best player, but he did it under far more favorable circumstances than Jordan. Let's take a look.
The playoff opponents that Russell faced up to 1967 are adjusted for 82 games, as the first 82-game season began in 1967/1968.
Michael Jordan playoff opponents (37 teams)
 |
| Jordan clearly faced superior competition in his career compared to Russell |
- 2 teams with losing records
- 10 sub-50 win teams
- 27 50+ win teams
- 9 60+ win teams
- 10-0 against sub-50 teams
- 20-7 against 50+ win teams
- 7-2 against 60+ win teams
- 6 teams with losing records
- 14 sub-50 win teams
- 15 50+ win teams
- 2 60+ win teams
- 6-0 against losing teams
- 13-1 against sub-50 teams (the one loss in the 1958 Finals when Russell was injured)
- 14-1 against 50+ win teams
- 1-1 against 60+ win teams
Nearly 3/4 of Jordan's playoff opponents had 50+ wins, whereas only half of Russell's had 50+ wins. This means that Russell beat up on easy sub-50 win teams for half of his playoff career, whereas Jordan only had that luxury for 1/4 of his playoff career. Jordan would have had far more free passes in Russell's shoes, considering that Jordan is 10-0 against sub-50 teams. Russell also played 3 times as many losing teams as Jordan, despite playing 8 less total playoff opponents. Russell's first 2 championships came against losing teams in the 1957 and 1959 Finals, whereas Jordan's losing opponents were just 1st-round fodder in 1991 and 1992. In fact, every team in the Western Division had a losing record in 1957 during Russell's first title year.
Let's do a quick review of the 3 main points
SECTION 3 - Jordan's "Weak" Defensive Competition Compared to Lebron/Kobe's "Advanced" Competition
- Proving the vast superiority of individual defenders of Jordan's era compared to the 2000s
SECTION 21 - Hakeem Olajuwon: The Greatest Center of All-Time
- Hakeem Olajuwon is the best center of all-time, and there is strong evidence to prove it
SECTION 29 - Refuting 10 Myths About Michael Jordan
- Refuting certain myths about Jordan, as well as abridging of some of the main points in earlier sections for easier reference.
SECTION 30 - The 20 Greatest Conference Finals Runs of All-Time
- Ranking the 20 greatest playoff runs in which a player played 3 rounds before losing prior to the NBA Finals
SECTION 31 - The 1970s: The Weakest Decade of the NBA's Post-Infancy
- Why the 1970s was the weakest decade of any era from 1960-present
SECTION 32 - The 10 Worst Supporting Casts on NBA Finals Teams (1960-Present)
- Examining the worst supporting casts on teams that reached the NBA Finals
SECTION 33 - The 10 Greatest Rookie Playoff Runs of All-Time
- The most impressive playoff runs in which rookies led their team to at least one series win
Russell played 2 60+ win teams in his entire playoff career. Jordan beat 2 60+ win teams in 3 different title runs, and 7 total in his 6 title seasons. To put that stacked level of competition in perspective, Kobe (1999-2012), Duncan, and LeBron have beaten a combined 6 60+ win teams in their playoff careers, even if you adjust 1999 and 2012 lockout teams for 82 games. Some may use the farcical expansion argument to claim that the top teams in the Jordan Era had inflated records from beating up on weak teams, but this was debunked in Section 6.
There was only 1 or 2 sub-20 teams every year from 1991/92 to 1996/97 and 0 in 1990/91. In 1997/98 there was a large number of sub-20 teams with 6, but 5 of them were in the Western Conference, so that wasn't of much benefit to Jordan coming out the East especially at playoff time. Next, because more teams won 50/60 games it's expected that the lower teams will have more losses, but in spite of that the only anomaly is 1998 which was caused mostly by West teams. From 91-95 there were 0 sub-20 teams in the East and only 1 in the East each year from 96-98. There was only 1 sub-20 team in the West in 94-95 when Hakeem won his 2 titles.
One of the arguments that fans of the Russell/Chamberlain Era cling to is the notion that the smaller league meant that the top teams had to play each other more often, leading to tougher competition. This is an invalid argument for two reasons. Firstly, as we see from Russell's playoff opponents, there weren't that many high-caliber teams to begin with, as half of Russell's playoff career was beating up on sub-50 win teams. Secondly, playing in a smaller league also means that you have the luxury of beating up on the worst teams over and over again.
Here's one example; the 1962 Warriors finished the season with a solid 49-31 record. However, due to the smaller league, they had the luxury of beating up the league-worst 18-62 Chicago Packers 10 times that year, and went 10-0 in those meetings. Outside of their 10 games against the worst team in the league, they had a less impressive 39-31 record. If anything, it was the teams of the Russell/Chamberlain Era that had inflated records from beating up on the worst teams several times a year, not the 90s, the most stacked era of all-time.
- There are only 6 championship teams that beat 2 60+ win teams in the playoffs. Four of them came in the 90s - the 1993, 1996, 1997 Bulls and 1995 Rockets. The other two are the 1973 Knicks and 2006 Heat.
- There are only 3 championship teams that beat both 3 50+ and 2 60+ win teams in the playoffs. All of them came in the 90s - the 1993 Bulls, 1995 Rockets, and 1997 Bulls. The 1993 Bulls beat 3 54+ win teams, the 1997 Bulls beat 3 56+ win teams, and the 1995 Rockets beat 4 57+ win teams.
- There are only 2 championship teams that beat 3 56+ win teams in the playoffs - the 1997 Bulls and the 1995 Rockets who beat 4 57+ win teams. Both of them also beat 2 60+ win teams as mentioned above.
The road to the championship in the 90s was clearly the toughest of any era, and definitely much tougher than the Russell Era. Russell only played 2 rounds to win each of his first 8 titles (1957, 1959-1965), and only played 3 rounds to win his last 3 titles (1966, 1968, 1969). Jordan had to play 4 rounds to win all 6 of his titles. Jordan played 24 opponents in his 6 titles, whereas Russell played 25 opponents in his 11 titles (16 opponents in his first 8 titles, 9 opponents in his last 3 titles.) Russell and Jordan played nearly the exact same amount of teams in their title seasons, but Russell got 5 more rings out of it due to playing under much more favorable circumstances.
 |
| Jordan's ring count would have easily exceeded Russell's under the favorable circumstances of the 1950/60s. |
Russell played 8 less total playoff opponents than Jordan, and had a much higher proportion of sub-50 teams to beat up on. Add in the much shorter playoff format of his day, and it's no wonder why Russell managed to get 5 more championships than Jordan under such favorable circumstances. One must consider how many more Finals appearances and championships Jordan would have if he only needed to win 2 rounds to win a championship for most of his career, like Russell did in his first 8 rings and 9 Finals appearances.
Jordan won 1 playoff series apiece in 1988 and 1995, and Russell only had to win 1 playoff series to make each of his first 9 NBA Finals. Had Jordan been playing in the Russell era, those 2nd-round exits to the Pistons and Magic would have been Finals appearances. If he was playing a losing team like Russell did in his first 2 championships, they would have been pretty easy rings.
Then you also have to consider Jordan's 1989 and 1990 ECF losses against the eventual champion Pistons. Winning 2 rounds was enough for a championship up to 1965, but Jordan didn't have that luxury in his time, as he was playing in a vastly superior era. This also makes Jordan's 6 titles under the 4-round format far more impressive, because he was beating twice the amount of teams in each title compared to Russell in each of his first 8 rings. And even in Russell's last 3 rings, he still wasn't facing as many teams as Jordan was.
Ordinarily, 6 doesn't beat 11, but when 6 comes against a much higher proportion of 50+ and 60+ win teams, and under the 4-round playoff format rather than 2 rounds for 8 rings and 3 rounds for 3 more rings, it most certainly does. One ring in the Jordan era is definitely worth more than one ring in the Russell Era.
Let's do a quick review of the 3 main points
- Jordan was dominant both offensively and defensively, whereas Russell only led his team offensively a few times. Even so, his offensive dominance was nowhere near Jordan's.
- Even though Russell contributed more defensively, Jordan contributed much more overall in his championships.
- Jordan won his 6 championships under much tougher circumstances and against the best competition of any era. Russell played under a much shorter playoff format and faced far easier competition at a far higher rate than Jordan did.
Russell has a case to being the greatest player of all-time, but Jordan and Hakeem have a much stronger one.
- Looking at how the Jordan Era players had an easier time in the modern era
- Looking at how a 38-40 year old Jordan himself schooled the 2000s defenders
SECTION 3 - Jordan's "Weak" Defensive Competition Compared to Lebron/Kobe's "Advanced" Competition
- Proving the vast superiority of individual defenders of Jordan's era compared to the 2000s
- Destroying the myth that Jordan never played zone defense
- Proof that 80s/90s players would still have success guarding 2000s players without the 80s/90s rules
- Looking at how Jordan did against the 80s teams and why expansion did not make it easier to win championships
- Proof that Jordan's Competition was 80s-quality and far better than the 2000s era
- Looking at the truth of how the Bulls did without Jordan, and how other great teams did without their stars.
- Did Jordan really get any more special treatment than other superstars? Nope.
- Exposing the myths behind the great, but misunderstood, Wilt Chamberlain
- Looking at how Lebron got locked down by defenders of the 2000s era and comparing them to the vastly superior 80s/90s
- Destroying one of the media's biggest misconceptions regarding Lebron's solid but vastly overrated defense
- Lebron fans think no player in history could succeed if their teammates don't step up, and that Lebron is the only one who has carried a team on his back. Is that really the case?
- The real Jordan vs Lebron comparison
- The real Jordan vs Kobe comparison
- Kareem is great, but he is not even the greatest center of all-time, let alone the greatest of all-time.
- The full context behind Jordan's struggles without Pippen
- A look at how Jordan turned the Wizards around before his knee injury caught up to him
- Looking at Jordan's defensive impact in detail, both as a team player and 1 on 1 defender
- Looking at the strong evidence supporting that Jordan would have achieved more than what LeBron has in Cleveland and Miami
SECTION 21 - Hakeem Olajuwon: The Greatest Center of All-Time
- Hakeem Olajuwon is the best center of all-time, and there is strong evidence to prove it
- Chris Paul is an extremely overrated playoff performer and defender, and isn't even a top 5 PG of his own era, let alone all-time
- Kevin Johnson is an extremely underrated and under-appreciated point guard, who should have been a first-ballot Hall of Famer and considered a top-10 point guard of all-time
- Analyzing the three greatest individual playoff runs in NBA history
- Analyzing the worst performances in NBA Finals history
- Comparing the two players who won the most championships as the best player on their team
- Taking a look at the greatest coaches in NBA history
- Taking a look at the players who least deserved to win their Finals MVPsSECTION 29 - Refuting 10 Myths About Michael Jordan
- Refuting certain myths about Jordan, as well as abridging of some of the main points in earlier sections for easier reference.
SECTION 30 - The 20 Greatest Conference Finals Runs of All-Time
- Ranking the 20 greatest playoff runs in which a player played 3 rounds before losing prior to the NBA Finals
SECTION 31 - The 1970s: The Weakest Decade of the NBA's Post-Infancy
- Why the 1970s was the weakest decade of any era from 1960-present
SECTION 32 - The 10 Worst Supporting Casts on NBA Finals Teams (1960-Present)
- Examining the worst supporting casts on teams that reached the NBA Finals
SECTION 33 - The 10 Greatest Rookie Playoff Runs of All-Time
- The most impressive playoff runs in which rookies led their team to at least one series win
So Russell is 3rd all time behind Jordan+Olajuwon?
ReplyDeleteI don't think so anymore. After finding all this info I think 3 is too high. I'll probably put him in the lower end of my top 10
DeleteWhy don't you do Jordan vs Hakeem next since you seem to think they are the two greatest players
DeleteDo a Jordan vs Oscar Robertson or MJ vs Larry
DeleteBill Russell=14 rings
DeleteNew top ten @NTJ??
DeleteDo you think Shaq is better than Kareem?
DeleteShaq is better, Oscar/Magic made Kareem the leading scorer of all time. Shaq sucks though
DeleteShaq >>>> Bird
DeleteAn obviously biased and deliberately misleading comparison. First of all, you can't directly compare "50+" and "60+" win seasons between Russell and Jordan because for most of his career Russell played during a time when the NBA played fewer games. For example, in the 1958-59 season, only 72 games were played versus 82 today. But you assume your readers won't notice this detail.
DeleteHere's the real head to head comparison. Russell and the Celtics made the NBA championship finals 12 times out of 13 seasons he played in the NBA (92.3% of the time). The only time Russell missed the Finals, he still made it to the Eastern Conference finals before losing against a record setting 76ers team. Jordan only made the championship finals 6 times out of 15 seasons total. And Jordan completely missed the playoffs twice and he got bounced out in the first round three times. When stacked up against Russell's record, that's absolutely laughable. Compared to Russell, Jordan is a loser.
I am aware of the shorter schedules pre-1968, and it was addressed in the post. That's why their W-L% was adjusted for 82 games. It is a valid comparison when you make that adjustment.
DeleteThe real head to head comparison is this.
Jordan played 24 opponents in his 6 titles, whereas Russell played 25 opponents in his 11 titles (16 opponents in his first 8 titles, 9 opponents in his last 3 titles.) Russell and Jordan played nearly the exact same amount of teams in their title seasons, but Russell got 5 more rings out of it due to playing under much more favorable circumstances.
Had Jordan had the luxury of playing sub-50 teams at a higher rate (almost half of Russell's opponents, only 1/4 of Jordan's), and only playing 2 teams per title run for the first 8 rings, 3 for the last 3 rings, it's clear he would have easily surpassed Russell's ring count. Even with Russell playing 8 less total playoff opponents, he played 6 losing teams to Jordan's 2 - further confirming that Jordan's competition was not only superior, but vastly superior
"Had Jordan had the luxury of playing sub-50 teams at a higher rate (almost half of Russell's opponents, only 1/4 of Jordan's), and only playing 2 teams per title run for the first 8 rings, 3 for the last 3 rings, it's clear he would have easily surpassed Russell's ring count."
DeleteThis would make sense if Jordan made it out of the FIRST ROUND or even made the playoffs. Don't forget that in 5 of Jordan's 15 NBA seasons his teams had a losing record. That, by itself, should end all comparisons. But, let's play along with your absurd hypothetical. The Bulls lost to the Bucks, Celtics, and Celtics in the First round. Do you think Jordan "should have won the title already" if he had played the Celtics' schedule? Then, Jordan lost in the Second round to the Orlando Magic in 1995. Would he have won the title that year, either? What about the two losses to the Pistons in the ECSF in 1987 and 1988? Would he have won the title then under Russell's rules? How about the two years he failed to make the playoffs as a Wizard? So, playing along with your little absurd hypothetical, Jordan would have 8 titles (Give him Detroit in 19989 and 1990). But, Magic would have TEN NBA titles. LeBron James would have NINE NBA titles, and Jerry West would have NINE NBA titles. Like many of this looney's diatribes regarding Jordan, he is selective in which criterion to whip out selectively to make his shallow points.
false equivalence. you disregarded the much higher proportion of sub-50 and non-winning teams that Russell faced compared to the much higher proportion of 50+ and winning teams Jordan faced, on top of beating 7 60+ win teams in the 6 title seasons. Kobe (1 as a starter) Duncan (2) and LeBron (3) combined have beaten 6 playoff teams of 60+ wins. Jordan had much tougher circumstances to deal with due to the far superior quality of the league in the 90s.
DeleteMagic and LeBron also faced sub-50 teams and non-winning teams at a far higher rate than Jordan. Magic faced 0 50+ win teams to make the 82, 84, 87 Finals for example. 18 of 37 playoff teams that LeBron has faced up to 2016 (49%) had under 50 wins, compared to only 10 of 37 (27%) for Jordan. like Russell, a half to quarter difference.
Jordan also only faced 2 teams without a winning record in his entire playoff career. LeBron has already faced 7, and faced two in the 2007 Playoffs alone. I'm not sure of Magic's total non-winning record playoff opponents, but in 1987 he also faced 2 non-winning playoff teams and matched Jordan's career total of 2 non-winning playoff opponents.
None of Jordan's missed playoff seasons were prime seasons, and 3 of them were injury or post-injury years. The broken foot season in 86, the knee injury in 01/02 (Wizards lost 9 of 10 games post-knee injury on Feb 7, 2002 after being 26-21 up to the injury) and the post-knee injury year in 2003 at age 39/40.
LeBron, Magic, and Russell also had more overall help in their titles than the Bulls, evidenced by the 97 and 98 Bulls having the 2 lowest scoring supporting casts in an NBA Finals on any team to win the Finals post-1954 at 55.5 and 54.5 ppg. factoring in far higher rates of sub-50 and non-winning opponents, and the relative lack of 60+ win opponents, Jordan would absolutely win more in the others' shoes.
I have a question about this article. So you brought up how Russell didn't have to play as many 50 or 60 win teams. I know you also addressed that since Russell played in a smaller league, he got to beat up on the bad teams more often. But since the league was smaller and had less players, would you agree or disagree that a 50/60 win team in Russell's era would be better than a 50/60 win team today since there's more players and the talent gap is a larger than what it would have been in Russell's era? Or would you think that even an above .500 team in Russell's era would be stronger than an above .500 team today? There was a video I watched where Russell said that Paxson wouldn't have even hit the game winner in the 1960s because he wouldn't have made a team because there were only 80 jobs available if you wanted to be an NBA player. I didn't quote what he said word for word or perfectly in order, but if you want to see the full quote then it is on youtube and the video is called Jordan, Wilt, and Russell discuss who the greatest player ever is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46RutBTe-as
ReplyDelete. He says it at like 3:00 roughly. What do you make of Russell saying that? Do you agree or disagree with him?
I don't agree with Russell's assessment, and I think a 0.500, 50+, or 60+ record is harder to achieve in the modern league than the same respective records in the 50s/60s/70s
DeleteHere are some reasons why
1958, 1959, 1960, 1966, 1967 - all but 1 team in the Western Division had a losing record
1967 - 7 out of the 10 teams (70%) in the league had a losing record when Wilt won his first title.
I don't see why a player like Paxson could not make the league when 7 of 10 teams had a losing record like in 1967 in the middle of the Celtics dynasty. So I believe having a conference where all but 1 team has a losing record or a league like 1967 where 70% has losing records inflates the teams with higher records, since they got to beat up on several weak and losing-record teams several times apiece each year. Even the 50/60 win teams of the day built those records while facing a large number of losing teams several times apiece. I think it's clearly easier to get a 50/60 win team when 7 of 10 teams in the league have a losing record.
And another example, both of the teams that Russell beat in his first 2 NBA Finals wins (1957 and 1959) had losing records. Since 1959, only 1 team has made the NBA Finals with a losing record, the 1981 Rockets at 40-42, out of more than 100 NBA Finals teams since 1959. So the standards are much higher now than in Russell's early championships, as well as the later ones.
The league is only diluted through expansion if the level and quantity of talent stays the same, but they both also increased as the league's size increased, therefore debunking the dilution argument.
That being said, I still believe players like Russell, Wilt, West, Baylor, Oscar were still good enough in their own eras to still be top 20 players of all-time and as high as top 10 for someone like Russell.
Thanks for the reply and the insight. And Thanks for fixing the problem. I never really thought of the 60s like that before. I didn't even know that the league had that many losing teams back then. So in all honesty we'll never know if John Paxson would have made the NBA or not, but it's definitely possible he would have. And also this may or may not be a potential article that could be done now, but one battle people like to bring up is Shaq vs Wilt since they were pretty similar players. Who do you believe was the more dominant big man? Who would you rank higher on the all time list, Shaq or Wilt? For me ranking players after Jordan at #1 is almost impossible, and the Shaq vs Wilt argument is no exception. I've seen Skip Bayless rank Shaq at #3 when I last saw, ahead of Wilt which I think is too high. I could see Shaq definitely as maybe top 10 all time, but #3 seems like a little bit high. And then I saw Rob Parker Rank Wilt Chamberlain at 5, then Shaq at 6. Honestly if I were the captain of a team and was picking second, I'd be more than happy to take either center, but if I was picking first, I'd probably go with Shaq. While I definitely think #3 for Shaq is a little too high, I would still probably pick him over Wilt. Shaq was finals MVP 3 times, and is a 4 time champion. The FMVP was not around in Wilt's first championship, but I'll give him that over Hal Greer based on a quick look at the box score since Wilt lead the team in rebounds and assists. And while Hal Greer had a higher ppg, his fg% was inefficient. Heck they honestly probably could have given it to Rick Berry since he was far and away the leading scorer on any team. Since Wilt's team won though, we'll just assume he would have won the FMVP. So that would give Wilt 2 FMVP with 2 championships. Shaq still was the clear best player in the Lakers 3peat though. Wilt probably was overall more talented than Shaq, but in terms of building a winning team, I think I'd get more championships with Shaq. And at the end of the day, I think that's what it's all about. What player/team gives you the best chance to win a championship? And also the teams that Shaq faced in the finals all had better records than any of the teams that Wilt faced in the finals. And as you said, the league has not been diluted because of expansion. Wilt had the stamina, and the talent to maybe truly be the GOAT, but for whatever reason, it didn't happen. Even Shaq got pretty lazy and out of shape and probably cost himself a ring or 2. But that's why all things are considered when ranking players whether it be on the court or off. Well that's why I'd go with Shaq. But who would you go with? Do you agree or disagree with me?
DeleteYou know what other than a Shaq vs Wilt article, another good article that I would definitely be interested in seeing is players who aren't in the hall of fame but should be, then you can list the 5-10 or 50 reasons why they should be. Or you could even do vise versa. Players who are in the hall of fame but shouldn't be. Or even 10 players currently playing who are NBA hall of fame locks. Honestly I might not even be able to come up with 10 off the top of my head. Call me stupid but I really don't know how a hall of famer is decided. I feel of all the major sports leagues, (NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB) the NBA has the lowest standards to meet. I mean you have the NFL with Terrell Owens who if I recall correctly is top five in receptions, touchdowns, and yards and not in the hall. Then you have the NBA where Yao Ming with a very short resume and not even double digit healthy years playing in the league is in. I'm not saying Yao wasn't a good player. He was a very good player. But I just would never have imagined him as a hall of famer especially when you consider that he only averaged more than 10 rebounds twice. And got out of the first round of the playoffs only once if I recall correctly. Who knows I might be stupid, and I just might not know basketball, but I would have just thought that the hall of fame would have higher standards than that. But anyway, I'd probably say players that are currently playing that will be in the hall of fame for sure are definitely Lebron, Dirk, Wade, Tony Parker, Bosh, Durant, CP3, Steph. Couldn't get to 10, but that's all I can think of for now. I don't really know enough players to make a list of players that I believe should be in the hall of fame but aren't, and I don't really know enough players to make a list of players who are in the hall of fame but shouldn't be. But I know you know a lot more about basketball then I probably ever will, so that would certainly be an interesting article if you have the time or interest in making such a thing.
DeleteYes. I would also take Shaq over Wilt. I have Shaq in my top 10 but not top 5. I have wilt in my top 15.
ReplyDeleteShaq stepped up his game more in the Finals. Here are some records
- Record 3 finals averaging 30-10
- Tied record 2 finals averaging 30-15 with Baylor
- Tied record 3 Finals averaging 33+ ppg with Jordan and West
- Career NBA Finals record of 60.2% FG
when wilt won his first title, 7 of 10 teams had losing records. When wilt won his 2nd title, the Knicks best player Willis Reed did not play due to injury. NYK was 2-0 vs Wilt in the 70 and 73 finals when Reed played.
So I have no doubt Shaq would be more successful in Wilts shoes playing next to the top players of that era like Thurmond Greer Cunningham West Baylor etc.
The hall of fame article doesn't really interest me. I've written about KJ being very underrated and a deserving HOF but I don't really feel like making a long list of deserving or undeserving HOF. I think Yao got in for his contribution to expanding the leagues popularity to China and Asia more than his game itself.
But yes I agree the HOF standards are inconsistent and often set the bar too low.
Cool. I'm sure you've been asked this 1000 times by now, but I'm going to ask again. It doesn't have to be in any particular order, and I don't need it to be in great detail as to why, but who would you have as your top 20 players of all time? Like I said after Jordan at #1, my list just gets extremely murky. And my list gets more skewed towards players from the 90s forward because those are the players that I have mostly come to know. And honestly there's a lot of players that deserve to be in the top 20 that I would probably space.
DeleteUhm. Of course Wilt's scoring average dropped vs the GOAT defender. No shit... But his rebounding got better and how was his defense on Russell? Mhm. Wilt was kicking ass vs the GOAT defender and the GOAT team.
ReplyDeleteBill Russell was a great player and one of the best centers in the NBA. In my opinion he`s 2nd or 3rd in Best center of all time but U mentioned some good points. MJ was a better overall player and faced better compettion but doesn`t mean Bill Russell faced weak compettion. Most of the teams he faced took his Celtics to 6 games or 7. Bill Russell faced the Sixers who had Wilt and Hal Geer also Bill Cunnigham. He faced the Hawks who had Peitit including the Knicks with Walt Ballemy who`s a underrated player also the best defensive center Willis Reed including his 69 playoff run he faced Walt Frazier-Reed duo so his compettion weak. I do think the 60s are sometimes bad due to the short teams but there were still good teams that were great matchups against the superteam Celtics.
ReplyDeleteNever met any hacker as discreet and fast like this Best System Hackers. They are called Best System Hacks and they has helped me in multiple ways first was when my ex spouse cheated on me- they got me every information from my spouse phone number and now they are helping me paying my credit cards debts. They have the best hacking tools plus service any one can ever imagine and I recommend him to the world. I am thankful and grateful for the second chance. Honestly, Best System hackers are life savers please contact them here if you need their swift service Email; BESTSYSTEMHACKSOLUTION@GMAIL.COM or text him on WhatsApp +1 (602) 609-4730 he is very trustworthy.
ReplyDelete