Debunking the Myth that Bill Russell was overrated

[Revis Island]

I constantly hear people saying Bill Russell is overrated this and Bill Russell is overrated that. About every reasoning people list to think he's overrated are all myths. So I am going to try to find/hear all the myths I've heard and debunk them.

Myth #1 - Bill Russell was an average offensive player because his career averages were 15 PPG under 44% FG shoooting. - That is straight up dead wrong.

 

How many shots are generated by a big guy setting a pick?? How many layups are because of an outlet pass that starts the break?? How many shots around the rim are made easier because of the threat of a great offensive rebounder?? There are no Centers that averages more assists than Russell in post season history with 4.7 APG (Could be wrong). Is passing not part of being an offensive player? Last I check it was, and also while his field goal % looks ordinary in today's league, it was top 7 in the league 4 times. It was a different time and a different game back then. And to end this all, Bill Russell was very capable of scoring 20 PPG, as he said on Roundtable talk with Greg Oden and other great centers, it just was not his job, he could do it but he never did. In 1962 and in 1963 he averaged 20+ PPG in the Playoffs. There is his capability of scoring.

 

Myth #2 - Bill Russell would have been nothing if he wasn't playing for the Boston Celtics - Again a Myth and nothing but.

 

Won 2 ncaa titles at a program that was absolutely nothing before he got there, and was absolutely nothing after he left (USF). Led them to a 55 game win streak in those two years.Along with that he was the Captain of the gold medal winning team in the Melbourne Olympics in 1956, prior to joining the Celtics mid-season.

 

Also, The Celtics were like this.....

 

Before Russell--Nothing, about a .500ish team

During Russell--11 titles in 13 years

Directly After Russell--Missing the playoffs

 

I would offer that many of the players who played with Russell were able to raise their play, because Russell was able to take care of virtually everything on the defensive end of the court, and a fair bit on offense as well. He just made life so much easier for all involved.

Myth #3 - Wilt Chamberlain played with Scrubs while Bill Russell had the most stacked team in NBA History - Big Myth.

 

Wilt Chamberlain played with 8 HOfers throughout his career while Bill Russell had 9. That's pretty even, I don't think 1 HOFer will make that much of a difference, especially if you are supposely more "dominant" than the other player. Wilt played with Elgin Baylor, Tom Gola, Nate Thurmond, Billy Cunningham, Paul Arizin, Jerry West, Goodrich, and Hal Greer. So if you think it was the teammates were the reasons why Russell managed to win every single time, Try again.

 

And Russell's HOF teammates.....

Player - (Pts/Reb/Ast) - accomplishments

Cousy - 18.4/5.2/7.5 (1 MVP, 10 straight 1st team all-NBA, 2 2nds)

Sharman - 17.8/3.9/3.0 (4 1st team all-NBA, 2 2nds)

Heinsohn - 18.6/8.8/2.0 (4 2nd team all-NBA)

Ramsey - 13.4/5.5/1.8 (never made an All-Star team)

Sam Jones - 17.7/4.9/2.5 (3 2nd team all-NBA)

KC Jones - 7.4/3.5/4.3 (never made an All-Star team)

Havlicek - 20.8/6.3/4.8 (4 1st team all-NBA, 7 2nds, all-defense 8 years)

Lovellette - 17.0/9.5/1.7 (however, that was mainly with other teams). With Boston, Lovellette was a 10-minute a game player at the end of his career.

Howell - (4 of 12 seasons with Boston), 18.7/9.9/1.9 (made 1 All-Star team with Bos)

 

 

Of those guys, there's no way Ramsey or KC Jones gets in the HOF without the rings. Lovellette shouldn't even count because he was at the tail end of his career when he played with Boston.

Myth #4 - Bill Rusell played in a Weak ERA, Replace him with anyone and they could dominant then. - Just another Myth.

 

Its been alluded to a number of times, but the basic flaw in the argument of people who criticize Russell is they have an imaginary time machine. If Russell had been born 50 years later, he would not look at all like he did back then. He would have had much more polished offensive moves, having had several generations of centers to copy. He would probably have been about 20 lbs heavier that was all muscle. He would still be an absolute athletic freak of nature who could run the floor faster than guards and he would still have a basketball IQ off the charts high.

 

Its a little bit like pretending that Kobe Bryant could have been born 50 years earlier and still be the same player, That's absolute nonsense. That Kobe would probably have issues dribbling with his left hand, would not have anywhere near as good a jumper, would have far fewer offensive moves, probably not have a fadeaway at all etc... He still would have been a great player for the era, but he would have looked nothing like what we associate with Kobe.

 

There is no magic time machine. Great players in one era are great players in any era - End of discussion.

 

Myth #5 - Wilt usually outplayed Russell, that's why he's the better player - Mostly a Myth, but somewhat true.

 

Wilt only averaged 6 points a game more than Russell when it matters.... the playoffs. Not exactly that huge a difference. And in the playoffs, Russell gets more boards and dimes than Wilt, despite playing slightly lower minutes. And the players back then voted Russell more MVPs than Wilt.

 

Along with that, People don't realize that most of the time Bill Russell LET Wilt Chamberlain score on him on purpose, You want to know why? Because that was how you put Wilt's team back then....Teams weren't stupid and teams weren't so weak that Wilt would dominant them THAT easily. You could double him or whatever. However, most of the time teams would purposely let Chamberlain score all the points in the beginning so he could get into a groove. Because once he gets on his groove he's not passing the ball ever, the only time his teammates would ever touch the ball in that Scenario is if they were dribbling the ball up the court.

 

Why they would do that you would ask? Because that was how you beat Wilt's team. You would let Wilt get his and shut down every other player. Because Wilt wasn't always about the wins during his younger years, he cared greatly about stats and most of the time they were more important to them than wins. That was why he kept losing until Bill Russell retired because he learned to copy his style of play to win championships.

 

Here's is one reason why Wilt outplayed Russell was a myth, Take 1969 for example. Russell on his last legs. Lakers are big favorites with Wilt, West and Baylor. Somebody forgot to tell Russell he was supposed to lose. He and the Celts hold Wilt to under 12 points a game that series. Wilt shoots 2-11 from the line in one loss (a one point loss I might add) and shoots 4-13 from the line in the deciding game 7 in a two point loss. He didn't exactly light up old Bill when it mattered then did he?

 

 

As you see here it is nothing but a Myth to say Bill Russell is overrated, but keep trying......

[Celtics3420]

Good points man, i agree with pretty much all of em .

[Revis Island]

Good points man, i agree with pretty much all of em .

You should give me some rep points.

[Mike Hawk]

Since when is Bill Russell Overatted?

[Revis Island]

Since when is Bill Russell Overatted?

I've seen a countless amount of times where people discredit Bill Russell with the myth I just debunked. People say stuff like Dwight Howard is better than him and that Eddy Curry would own him in today's league.

[Mike Hawk]

I've seen a countless amount of times where people discredit Bill Russell with the myth I just debunked. People say stuff like Dwight Howard is better than him and that Eddy Curry would own him in today's league.

 

LMAO, whoever says that is a total Moron.

There is no way dwight would be able to withstand the physical punishment from that Era.

[Real Deal]

You forget three things:

 

1) There were eight to nine teams in the league when Russell and the Celtics won nine of their titles. Ironically, that was through the first ten seasons of Russell's short 13-year career.

 

2) In 1961 (just picking Russell's first MVP), there were a total of three seven-footers in the league: Wilt, Swede Halbrook and Walter Dukes.

 

To take it a step further, Walter Dukes was the only seven-footer in the NBA when Russell was a rookie.

 

In Russell's last season in the league, there were six seven-footers in the NBA, along with 14 NBA teams. Russell was the seventh-best scorer on the team (9.9 PPG) and shot a horrific 43% from the field as the starting center and tallest player on that team (and possibly the tallest player on the Celtics from 1956 until he retired, but that's just a guess).

 

3) Russell never shot 47% or better from the floor in all 13 seasons he played, and he shot under 45% nine times. He also shot under 40% in the playoffs four times, and shot over 50% just once.

 

Wilt led the league in field goals nine times. He led the league in scoring seven-consecutive times (not counting the season he didn't play). He led the league in rebounding 11 times in 13 full seasons (14 seasons total). He won the MVP his rookie season.

 

I could go on and on...but I won't. Russell was a glorified rebounding machine, and that's it. He was a bad offensive player that took 16-18 shots per game, just to score under 20 points...and above everything else, he didn't and could never touch Wilt.

 

It's a shame that there weren't 30 teams in the NBA back in the 60's. I'd much rather jump into competitions that give me a one-in-eight chance to win, especially when there's only one or two other guys that should be able to slow me down because of their size and talent.

[Mike Hawk]

You forget three things:

 

1) There were eight to nine teams in the league when Russell and the Celtics won nine of their titles. Ironically, that was through the first ten seasons of Russell's short 13-year career.

 

2) In 1961 (just picking Russell's first MVP), there were a total of three seven-footers in the league: Wilt, Swede Halbrook and Walter Dukes.

 

To take it a step further, Walter Dukes was the only seven-footer in the NBA when Russell was a rookie.

 

In Russell's last season in the league, there were six seven-footers in the NBA, along with 14 NBA teams. Russell was the seventh-best scorer on the team (9.9 PPG) and shot a horrific 43% from the field as the starting center and tallest player on that team (and possibly the tallest player on the Celtics from 1956 until he retired, but that's just a guess).

 

3) Russell never shot 47% or better from the floor in all 13 seasons he played, and he shot under 45% nine times. He also shot under 40% in the playoffs four times, and shot over 50% just once.

 

Wilt led the league in field goals nine times. He led the league in scoring seven-consecutive times (not counting the season he didn't play). He led the league in rebounding 11 times in 13 full seasons (14 seasons total). He won the MVP his rookie season.

 

I could go on and on...but I won't. Russell was a glorified rebounding machine, and that's it. He was a bad offensive player that took 16-18 shots per game, just to score under 20 points...and above everything else, he didn't and could never touch Wilt.

 

It's a shame that there weren't 30 teams in the NBA back in the 60's. I'd much rather jump into competitions that give me a one-in-eight chance to win, especially when there's only one or two other guys that should be able to slow me down because of their size and talent.

 

Well Name me Legit 7 Foot Centers, Who can stop Dwight Right now?

[EastCoastNiner]

You forget three things:

 

1) There were eight to nine teams in the league when Russell and the Celtics won nine of their titles. Ironically, that was through the first ten seasons of Russell's short 13-year career.

 

2) In 1961 (just picking Russell's first MVP), there were a total of three seven-footers in the league: Wilt, Swede Halbrook and Walter Dukes.

 

To take it a step further, Walter Dukes was the only seven-footer in the NBA when Russell was a rookie.

 

In Russell's last season in the league, there were six seven-footers in the NBA, along with 14 NBA teams. Russell was the seventh-best scorer on the team (9.9 PPG) and shot a horrific 43% from the field as the starting center and tallest player on that team (and possibly the tallest player on the Celtics from 1956 until he retired, but that's just a guess).

 

3) Russell never shot 47% or better from the floor in all 13 seasons he played, and he shot under 45% nine times. He also shot under 40% in the playoffs four times, and shot over 50% just once.

 

Wilt led the league in field goals nine times. He led the league in scoring seven-consecutive times (not counting the season he didn't play). He led the league in rebounding 11 times in 13 full seasons (14 seasons total). He won the MVP his rookie season.

 

I could go on and on...but I won't. Russell was a glorified rebounding machine, and that's it. He was a bad offensive player that took 16-18 shots per game, just to score under 20 points...and above everything else, he didn't and could never touch Wilt.

 

It's a shame that there weren't 30 teams in the NBA back in the 60's. I'd much rather jump into competitions that give me a one-in-eight chance to win, especially when there's only one or two other guys that should be able to slow me down because of their size and talent.

 

I don't get how you can take away from Bill Russel's accomplishments from his era, when you won't even think about taking anything away from Michael Jordan when he played in a an era that was not that strong, whether or not you want to admit it, and played during a time period where the NBA was having expansion teams come into the league.

 

I'm not trying to turn this into a Michael Jordan thread, but the point is that if you are going to take away something from a player because of his era, you need to do it to other players that didn't play in a strong era, and had many more advantages.

[Diesel]

I don't get how you can take away from Bill Russel's accomplishments from his era, when you won't even think about taking anything away from Michael Jordan when he played in a an era that was not that strong, whether or not you want to admit it, and played during a time period where the NBA was having expansion teams come into the league.

 

I'm not trying to turn this into a Michael Jordan thread, but the point is that if you are going to take away something from a player because of his era, you need to do it to other players that didn't play in a strong era, and had many more advantages.

 

Because Bill Russell played when there was only 8 teams. Jordan played in a league that had about 28 or so.

 

Here's another though. Bill Russell's 59 championship Celtics team had 7 Hall Of famers on it. Can you imagine how hard it is to stop a team with 7 hall of famers on it from winning it all, especially in an eight team league? No other team had close to that magnitude of talent.

 

And Russell > Wilt is just insane. They played in the same era. Wilt was ten times the offensive player Russell was(and that's being generous). Wilt outrebounded Russell. And Wilt was just as good defensively as Russell was and Wilt was claimed to have blocked at least 6 shots a game if that stat was kept during that time.

 

You like to blame Russell's era for his poor FG%, so please explain to me why Wilt's FG% was well above 50% every year of his career.

[YugoRocketsFan]

Kobe is 10x better than Russell.

[Real Deal]

Because Bill Russell played when there was only 8 teams. Jordan played in a league that had about 28 or so.

 

Here's another though. Bill Russell's 59 championship Celtics team had 7 Hall Of famers on it. Can you imagine how hard it is to stop a team with 7 hall of famers on it from winning it all, especially in an eight team league? No other team had close to that magnitude of talent.

 

And Russell > Wilt is just insane. They played in the same era. Wilt was ten times the offensive player Russell was(and that's being generous). Wilt outrebounded Russell. And Wilt was just as good defensively as Russell was and Wilt was claimed to have blocked at least 6 shots a game if that stat was kept during that time.

 

You like to blame Russell's era for his poor FG%, so please explain to me why Wilt's FG% was well above 50% every year of his career.

Pretty much it.

[Years]

Great read I was just never aware of the fact people thought Bill was overrated hell I think he's underated if anything people try to debuke him of his achivements.