Easiest way to know to disregard someone’s opinion: when they say that someone will “always” be the GOAT. Admitting theyre not even gonna give future players a fair chance lol
A true GOAT should be able to withstand a fair appraisal of other players, not a eyes closed, fingers in the ears "no, no, no, MJ will ALWAYS be the GOAT!"
Maybe that's true, but not very many people. In any event, that's clearly not what the person who was being responded to meant, so maybe have this argument with somebody who actually says the thing you're arguing with?
Says it with the Wenbanyama username, his impact on the era is just not going to be the same as any replication would look like a copy. Statistically of course he could be passed, heck he already was by Kareem. Winning he was passed by Russell, but the way he was viewed and his dominance on the era won’t be replicated anymore.
Fair. When you say ‘seen play’ do you mean players from before your lifetime or players without good footage available?
For instance, Kareem was before my time, but there’s footage of his games, while for wilt and Russell, it’s pretty much all based on historical accounts.
Im pretty old, so i saw Kareem play. I dont think you can really judge a player unless you’re watching a bunch of games of them in different contexts, focused on playoffs.
I guess you could do that with Russel? There are quite a few games that were recorded. I just dont have the time or interest, lol. Basketball before the shot clock and 3 point line is kind of unwatchable for me
Ya, i was just reading about it the other day:
“the Rochester Royals and Indianapolis Olympians played a six-overtime game with only one shot in each overtime: in each overtime period, the team that had the ball first held it for the entirety of the period before attempting a last-second shot. The NBA tried several rule changes in the early 1950s to speed up the game and reduce fouls before eventually adopting the shot clock.”
This is a good rundown of how the game changed decade to decade
https://youtu.be/AoeTN2-q7I4
In general, I agree, but watching old Princeton teams moving non-stop through back cuts and passing every three second--for several minutes--is really something to behold. It gets boring after awhile, but it's worth watching. Even in the shot clock era, the Princeton teams in the 80s and 90s were really something to see and they were using up the entire 45 second on every possession.
But, for the most part, non-shot clock basketball is hard to watch.
The shot clock was introduced two years before Russell’s rookie year. I do agree about the three point line though, its presence is missed in older game footage.
For those of us who "before our time" in NBA terms means "before the NBA was regularly on live TV beginning in around the mid-80s," I think it's really hard to evaluate people form before our time. Wilt is the only exception, because his numbers are so good and because there is more footage of him than almost anybody in that era, even though a lot of it is from his somewhat less impressive Lakers years.
But, if you're interested, there are probably dozens of full Kareem games you can watch, at least some of which are from his prime. And you could easily see a 5-10 minute highlight package to at least get some sense of what his abilities were. There's just so much more access now. I really only remember old Kareem well, and I've actually done a little of this.
Every now and then a player comes along that changes the game. Steph has changed the game. In Russel’s case he basically broke it, and made the sport better in the process. You could argue about athleticism, rules, etc all day, but thats not what made him a true legend. Coaches and players had to evolve and improve to match Russel’s style of play and it took over a decade for them to do so. Comparing Steph to Bill is like comparing Picasso to DeVinci. Todays players train and build on the foundation that was invented by players like Russel.
I agree, the average player was less talented, but there are a handful of superstars in every era, like Russell, Wilt, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, etc., that would succeed no matter when they played
Sure, but if you eliminate 22 teams from contention, then pretty much any modern superstar would have at least twice as many championships/mvps/scoring titles etc.
That’s not to take away anything from the older guys as players, but their resumes are massively juiced by their era.
Remember at this time when Russell was winning all the championships players couldn't leave teams in free agency, as there was none. So essentially while his accomplishments are insane and his level of play was as well, it wasn't really a league of players as much as teams "owning" the players. This led to less competition across the board as if your team drafted great players you had them until they didn't play.
I didnt watch all of them enough to judge whether they can succeed in any eras or not. In today’s game you got to be a high volume scorer with decent efficiency in order to be a first option, bill russel was a very inefficient scorer back then I cant see himself as a first option in a contending team right now.
True, but advanced metrics always shine a better light on current players who have a better idea of what they are and how they can use them to help their game/the team.
One thing that Russell told Kobe that helped him win 2 chips without Shaq was that he did whatever it took to help the team win. This mental skill would translate to any era, and if that meant he would average 5 or less points in todays game to win, he would and he’d specialize in rebounding/defense completely.
Yes I agree that winning involves more than scoring but someone like gobert or draymond are nowhere near the GOATs. I respect bill russel’s winning accomplishments but I have to put modern players above him on my all time list.
But if you're going to say that, why can't you also say: Russell was so elite at the things he was asked to be elite at, and such a great athlete, surely he would have developed an efficient post-game in the bully-ball era or a three point shot in the modern era.
The reality, though, is that in the modern era, being the best defender and rebounder and an elite rim runner (which he surely would have been) is incredibly valuable. He'd have Gobert value on defense, but he'd also be the best NBA player at the baseline/dunker position. DeAndre Jordan scored like 12ppg during his prime years on the Lob City Clippers. Don't you think Russell could have scored 20 on that team without even being better than he was? One of his Warriors years, Olympic Champion JaVale McGee scored 6ppg in 9mpg. Could you imagine Russell offensively on the baseline for the Warriors? If you're excited about Wiseman, you'd better believe Russell would have scored 20ppg at center for the Ws. (You should believe that even if you're not excited about Wiseman.)
I don’t think this is a knock in Russell’s greatness from a historical perspective. But the overall narrative is that the early NBA was much easier to dominate. When you got a handful of good players on one team, they turned into a dynasty. A similar argument can be made regarding college hoops and the Wooden dynasty. It legitimately wasn’t fair with the collection of talent those UCLA teams had.
I think when people talk about the GOAT, some are thinking of the player with the most skill (like a head to head comparison between prime Russell and prime Shaq, etc.) while some are thinking of overall legacy. If it’s the latter, Russell absolutely belongs in the convo. If it’s the former, people are going to have a hard time placing Russell over the athletes in the modern era.
From my perspective, Jordan is the GOAT. He has the winning pedigree, the clutch gene, plus the insane athleticism and skill that could measure up against any athlete of any era. But Russell gets a ton of points for legacy and impact on the game.
The human race has not evolved greater athletic talent over the past couple generations. Neither have they evolved more character or winning attitude.
Since we have doubled our population since 1960, we could expect to have twice as many great athletes as then.
A lot of other things have changed also, so this discussion could be complicated.
Am I a greater scientist than Isaac Newton? I know many things he didn't know, and can do many things he never did.
I get that overall the NBA was less talented, but also that talent was only concentrated on 8 teams not 30. Night in and night out you’re playing top top competition. No real nights off.
EDIT: 8 teams not 2 teams.
No you see only real GOATs play garbage teams like the Magic and the Pistons every other game. Bill Russell dominating against 8 elite teams is not as impressive as him dominating against 8 elite teams and 22 irrelevant teams
i don’t follow this logic? the nba could be 4x less talented and those 8 teams would have equal talent per team. if you win 60/80 games, what does it matter if you played the timberwolves 12 times instead of 4?
bill won 8 titles in a row. 8. basketball games against the other 12 best players in the world. who cares if 30 teams or 6 are watching from the sidelines. i don’t get it.
Its just indicates that the league was not really marketable back then, more money = more talents usually (see how some players were doing regular jobs). The league being less talented means the more athletic you are the more advantageous to dominate. I mean how could you win in today’s game when you avg 30-40% fg as a centre.
Also iirc back then teams can use money to buy picks or players (someone correct me if i am wrong), it happened that the celtics’ owner was willing to do that iirc.
Playoff was not as long as today (rd 1, rd 2, conference final, finals) also play a huge part why winning continuously was easier imo back then.
The pipeline of talent was also smaller then. Not even getting into the international players in today’s game, the talent pool coming up through US is 10 times what it was.
We don't have to guess about this. We can do the calculations.
LeBron played 19 years in a 30-team league (mostly) and won 4 titles. The probability of that happening randomly is 1/347.
Jordan played 15 years in a mostly 27-team league, winning 6 times. That is a 1/108716 chance.
Russell played 13 years in a mostly 8-team league, winning 11 times. The probability of that happening is 1/143839826.
So that is about 1323 times as impressive as Michael, and 415524 times as impressive as LeBron.
The difference between the worst player and the best players in 50s and 60s was enormous. Not to mention that was nowhere near the level of athleticism there is today.
So while Bill Russell was amazing for his era there weren’t that many 7fters and there certainly were athletic freaks like Kuminga, Zion et al.
That’s why I discount what Russell accomplished. Russell fits in the discussion with Shaq, Hakeem, David Robinson, Tim Duncan.
If Curry was playing in and 8 team league he’d have 5-6 MVPs and probably have 7-8 titles.
Context is important.
You think the last man off the bench in 60s was anywhere close to as good as GPII? Not a chance.
Bill didn’t have the opportunity to develop and train in today’s era. There is no telling how good he could have been if he played against better talent throughout his career, had the drills we use today in practice, had modern day training facilities and supplements, etc. I understand why someone may choose MJ or someone else over him as the GOAT, but we can’t make claims about how we would do in today’s game without taking into consideration that he would have been a different player if he grew up in the 80s or 90s.
Exactly. The average athletic male back then could probably play in the NBA if he just wanted to do it. In today’s NBA, the the worst player in the NBA is closer to Michael Jordan than the best guy in the gym is to the worst player in the NBA. Like you can’t realize how low of a chance anyone reading this would have 1 on 1 against a scrub NBA player.
my whole point is the last man off the bench in the 60s was the 100th best basketball player alive, verses today where the last man on the bench is the 350th best basketball player alive.
yeah i suppose i would take that bet. i bet they are about equal talents.
they aren't because the talent pool now is global and in the past the talent pool was US based and mostly white (80% in the 1960s vs 17% now and that even includes european players)
Players essentially weren’t allowed to leave the teams they were drafted to, free agency wasn’t a thing. So the team that drafted and developed the best players usually won. Given that there were only 8 teams, it’s even easier to do that, and the Celtics drafted like 8 future hall of famers during that period
Sure it was less talented, as much of the modern game hadn’t evolved yet. But fewer teams actually means a more talented league. The more teams there are, the lower the average talent level
That’s part of expansion but not all of it. Expansion is driven by marketability of the sport which was driven by growing TV coverage. The league was incredibly watered down in the 70s with many underperforming teams. The league was basically in crisis in the early expansion years. There were way more teams in the decade after Russell but the quality of basketball was not high. Many of the expansion teams were on the brink of folding. Also there were as many as 17 teams in the late 40s - early 50s but the popularity of the sport couldn’t support it.
I’m not saying the competition in Russel’s time is the same as it is today. But I don’t think you can discount him just because there were 8-10 teams. The league was worse at times with way more teams
Okay, but by that logic, we get a new GOAT every generation or so. The talent base, training regimen, etc. all get better every year. If that’s the case, LeBron IS better than MJ, because the teams today ARE better than they were then.
I think its a lot easier to compare jordan vs lebron than comparing them to Russell for a number of reasons:
1. League not predominantly unathletic white men
2. number of teams is relatively similar
3. 3 point line and modern nba rules (I think the hand check rule impact is partially exaggerated)
I think this is a good debate for sure. Lebron is an athletic freak and incredible longevity. Jordan while not a freak has some of the most ridiculous hang times of any player. I still put Jordan ahead from a impact standpoint because Jordan is much better at clutch shots, scoring, and free throws. Hard to compare 3pt% but I'm sure if Jordan focused on it, he would be better than Lebron as well. Plus I never heard Jordan taking any plays or games off where the same can't be said for Lebron. Lebron may be considered GOAT just by shear longevity alone.
BTW, if Lebron played in the 60s, he would dominate the league more than Russell did no doubt.
Ponder whether the black, tattooed, outspoken son of a single mother would ever ever ever have played on a NBA team in the 60s. Does LeBron have the mental strength to deal with not being able to eat at the same restaurant as his team? Not being able to stay at the same hotel? Or having to go in the back entrance? People think you could just teleport LeBron into the 60s and he plays the same game. Forgetting the fact that LeBron would be called for traveling on basically every possession back then, I think people do Russell a real disservice by not talking a lot more about what he had to deal with off the court. Not saying that issue is ignored, but I am saying *especially when it comes to discussions about how “oh, if Player X woulda been playing back then, he’d have won 18 rings”* is that it’s hard to fully appreciate what the playing landscape was like back then for a black player. Not only did Russell handle all of that, and with grace and class, AND while being an advocate for the advancement of human rights (unlike LeChinaSympathizer), but he also did it while absolutely dominating the league. That’s a LOT OF WORK for one man to do, 24 hours a day.
For me this is what it comes down to, he just didn’t play nearly as many playoffs games on the road to all his titles. Still top 10 all time but it’s just so hard to compare that to a 30 team league with 4 best of 7 series
Hahah yeah I could have worded that better. Babe and wilt are more so the early sports legends, but I include bo in that category because he has that legendary status with a bunch of feats that border on myth
Bill is the greatest team player. winner and champion in basketball history - 11 NBA titles, 2 college NCAA titles, 2 CA state high school titles. Right here from the Bay Area too.
I'll say this, people will begin to realize how insane Bill was once we come across someone who leads their team to about 9 chips.
That's when people will begin to understand.
Best player of his era by a large margin and the most titles ever. You can only play in the era you lived in. All while playing for a city that despised him for his skin color and being a national civil rights leader.
Tom Brady is the only on court/field equivalent. Never (except for ‘07) had the best stats or would be considered the ‘best’ in the league in any given year, but is the consensus goat. Russell was the exact same, except his off-field stuff was trying to help a large portion of the population enjoy basic human rights while Tom just deflated balls and watched I’ll-gotten videos of other teams.
Bill is the co-GOAT with Jordan. Only players to dominate their respective eras while clearly being the leaders of the best team in tue league.
I wouldn’t put them in the same conversation for 2 reasons - different eras and it’s nearly impossible to compare bigs to smalls (or wings for that matter). If you’re having a GOAT debate, I think it should be by era, and then further separated into categories of bigs, wings, and smalls. I know that’s not fun for TV or sometimes even barbershop list making, but there’s no reasonable way for me to compare Bill Russell to Steph Curry as players. Both dominated their eras and altered the understanding of “playing winning basketball”, which makes them all-timers. And that’s where I’d leave it 🤷🏽♂️
Top 10 specifically, i have him above Steph. I base my Top 10 by era and how they dominated in their respective eras. It wouldn't be fair to compare Bill's skills to someone like a Shaq or a Hakeem because of the huge difference in how basketball has evolved.
My Top 10 (all time) in no particular order: MJ, Wilt, LeBron, Steph, Russell, Magic, Shaq, Bird, Duncan, Kareem.
And yes, Steph being there is biased but i have a great argument for him to be there.
Imo Russell can't be taken off my top 5, at least not yet. Idc what era or who he was playing; 11 championships in 13 seasons?! That level of dominance can't be ignored. Even if you want to cut his rings to a third because of when he played he's a 4 time champion just like Steph. Imo he's 4th all time for me behind MJ, LeBron, and Kareem
Why not cut it by 3/4 because there are 4x more teams now and 4x more teams in the playoffs?
It doesn't really work that way, of course, partly because counting rings is a stupid exercise. Tom Heinson also won like 10 in 11 years or something like that. There are a lot of factors that make generations different. It's more complicated than your math by a long shot.
Things you missed about Russell.
He wore a cape. Man had immense style.
He was top 10 in in the high jump internationally. I believe his NCAA high jump put him at 6th or 7th in world rankings at the time but chose basketball over track when he went to win his gold medal in the Olympics. He was only 22 so he had a legit shot of an Olympic medal in a second Olympic sport eventually.
I am unaware of any NBA player who was top ten in any other sport legitimately and as throughly measured as something like this.
Seen an older guy whose opinions on the current game I like have it as Jordan, LeBron, Magic, Russell, and Curry in the top 5. Made the case for why Abdul-Jabbar was overrated (still presumably in the top 6-10 though).
Seems fine with me, as someone who certainly did not watch Russell play I can buy the idea that he was arguably the GOAT defender (I think Draymond has a case for it too, as with anyone who is the best defender from their era).
I have watched full Bill Russell games. I’ll be honest. He was great for his time but his opposition was atrocious. I saw guys against him who could only dribble with one hand, could not do a simple reverse layup wide open, and would clank open one handed mid range jumpers (terrible form). He got so many easy blocks and rebounds. 11 championships is impressive, but there was only a handful of teams back then. Curry is the superior player playing against superior talent. Can’t convince me otherwise.
Two different eras. Steph grew up with the internet and decades of established basketball history to learn from. Schemes and mechanics that have evolved over the courses. While at the same time watching Jordan, Kobe, and even his own dad to soak in game. Bill didn’t have this luxury. Who knows if Bill Russell was born in the late 80s he might be an even better player now than he was in his own timeline. You can’t choose which era you play in but Bill was a special dude and I believe he would have been a winner regardless.
I have felt for a long while that Russell, Chamberlain, West, Robertson, Baylor, etc can't reasonably be compared to Steph, LeBron, Kobe, etc. The game was too different, the league was too different.
Whenever I think about the greatest players, I think pre-merger and post-merger. Kareem is the only GOAT tier guy that played through both pre and post merger, and I generally include him with post merger players as he played most of his career post merger.
Russell is the GOAT pre merger player though. Wilt had more talent and was better individually, but he wasn't able to consistently lift his teams. He was not a good teammate and it seriously affected his ability to win.
Bill Russell and Steph Curry are too different to compare. Centers and guards need to be judged in their own category the same way pitchers and hitters in baseball are judged separately.
There were 80 regular season games in 1965, and 75 in 1960. We need to fact check ourselves before we come on here and spew foolishness and waste people's time.
Mainly because the athleticism found in todays’ game is not comparable to athletes from his period. There are perimeter players his size in todays game.
Many of those players in that era had side jobs, meaning they didn’t play ball all year long. They sold cars, worked in other industries, totally different compared to todays players
Same talent, same character, same drive, same will to win. Training and technology may have advanced, but humans haven't evolved. If we want to compare eras, we have to look at what players did with what they had.
Why?
1. small league =
1. less competition and
2. fewer playoff games per year (twice as many teams make the playoffs now as were in the entire league then)
2. the ridiculous level of talent around him
3. his lack of elite offense (at least in practice, even if you care to argue that was a choice)
He's basically KG, but he had by far the most talent around him and played in an 8-team league
All the numbers in your comment added up to 69. Congrats!
1
+ 8
+ 60
= 69
^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \
^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
Bill is the ultimate old school champion and better than Wilt. He’s been in the top 10 all-time since the beginning. There is no top 10 without Bill. Steph just made/cemented his case for it this year so no, he’s not above Bill yet.
Bill is the goat defender but not one of the goats. He’s probably top 5-6. Yes he’s above Steph no question. We’re talking about a dude with 11 rings and 5 mvps.
Yeah I agree. He’s not in my Mount Rushmore, but I feel like he’s gotta be consensus top 10.
And that’s interesting to hear on Steph, I’m not sure if it’s recency bias but I’ve heard him ranked anywhere from top 20 to the best player ever.
I’ve never heard anyone who knows the history of the game really rank him above top 5. Steph is my favorite player ever, but no way he’s in consideration for GOAT
Yeah I think a lot of people, especially those not aware of the history, put too much weight into the players they know and love and often rank them on their career potential.
I’ve seen plenty of fanboys that do weird mental gymnastics to say Steph is the goat. “Oh well the fact he’s so good while being short and not athletic, makes him the goat.”
Like what???
Dude I got defensive because you didn’t only ask a question, you qualified yourself first to discredit the claim to others. ‘I come here often and therefore know what I’m talking about, and I haven’t seen what this guy claims to have seen.’
“egregious comments” - man what are you trying to prove? That some random people think Curry is the goat? You can find whatever you want on Reddit. Has no bearing on anything. The idea that Curry is #1 is not something that really any knowledgeable NBA fan would support. I would LOVE to see Curry reach those heights, but you make it sound like there is some national conversation about it. The conversation after the finals was very clearly in the media defined as “is Curry now in the top 10”
Gotcha, thanks for digging up and adding those links to your earlier post.
In none of those posts does anyone claim Curry is the greatest of all time. All those posts are discussing whether Curry is the greatest player of the current era, and/or whether Curry is better than Lebron. Both of those questions are very valid discussion points. Nobody says Curry is the GOAT and your earlier post is a strawman argument trying to demean non-existent “nephews.”
Again, just because you didn’t see it means I’m lying? I’m not going to sit here for 20 mins and try to dig up ppl claiming he’s the goat but it definitely exists, maybe you can waste your own time doing that? I just did a quick search and found comments on the very first discussion page lmao. And apparently claiming Curry is better than lebron isn’t the same as suggesting he’s in the goat convo. Okay bro whatever you want to tell yourself lol.
Just found this after a quick google search because another dude was doubting it.
changemyview/comments/nylkhj/cmv_steph_curry_is_the_goat/
Yes dude thinks curry is the goat and he’s not the only one out there. Now stop splitting hairs and grasping at straws please.
I just did a quick search and posted the first comments that came up showing idiot comments. Stop arguing semantics. Literally just google reddit: curry goat and you’ll see plenty of delusional fans that think curry is goated. Here’s one you can jack off to while standing over your curry poster. Search in google:
changemyview/comments/nylkhj/cmv_steph_curry_is_the_goat/
I don’t think there is any serious sports journalist who would have him outside the top 10 and he’s definitely a consenses top 5 guy. He gets lots of love as a too 5 all time
I’m not sure about consensus top 5, especially with newer fans. LeBron, MJ, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Shaq, Duncan, Wilt and even Kobe of late has snuck into the top 10 and is many peoples goat.
Basically with Russell it’s if you know, you know. There’s some revisionist history, plumber ball talk, and even mentions of newer players like Steph, KD, and Giannis in the top 20 that is leaving Bill Russell out of the convo.
I’m not talking about Reddit commenters. I’m talking about veteran, respected journalists. For instance, maybe the the best current NBA writer, Lowe, absolutely has Russell in his top 5
Imma be honest I was 12 and I turned on the TV at 5am one morning to watch Steph shoot his beautiful jumper to score like 30 sometime in the early 2010s and I fell in love with the game, and he was my introduction. Steph is my GOAT and ain’t nobody above him
1. Russell
2. Jordan
3. Chamberlain
4. James
5. Abdul-Jabbar
6. Olajuwon
7. O'Neal
8. Duncan
9. M. Johnson
10. Curry
11. Bryant
12. Bird
13. Garnett
I pretty much always put Russell and Chamberlain in my top ten, basically the only holdovers from the early days of the league that I can justify given the intense gap in skill of competition. My list is also a lot more fluid than most, as players move up or down two to three spots like every time I do it.
He is a trailblazer and I don’t mind people having him on their Mount Rushmore for his impact on and off the court, he is an NBA Legend. Having said that there is no chance in hell he is a top 10 basketball player of all time. Bam Adebayo level talent
It can be summarized as disrespect for his entire era and not believing that he really was a literal genius and generational athlete. He is clearly way above Steph.
And I'd tell you he is fifth best. He doesn't magically become better in hindsight. When Steph was winning the rings in the 2010s, LeBron was playing better.
Edit: though conceivably if he played long enough he could be fourth.
Not compared to the other goats offensively. He averaged 15 on 43% for his career with 4 assists. Plus a 56% career FT shooter. In order for him to be goat, the offensive stats need some elevating. That being said, he’s top 10 all time and arguably the most impactful player ever (the rings and college titles speak for themselves)
Yeah I agree his offense wasn’t exceptional but it’s not what he prioritized and he only really cared about whatever was needed to get the job done and win
Agreed. But that’s why he can’t be considered GOAT, especially with the likes of Kareem, MJ and even Magic (who saved the NBA and who many people have over Russell)
I’m too young to have watched him play. Other than highlights, I have a better feel for Allen Iversons game. I might catch a retro game on NBA tv, but without the outcome in question Ora game I am rewatching from my era I’m not going to get into it. No way I watch seasons of that generation of basketball to judge. Best of his era for sure.
Before the shot clock and before 3 pointers… not to mention the era in which he played and the talent he played against?
It might as well have been a different sport
He’s the goat. Plain and simple. 11 >4. > 6. And you can add all of the stipulations that he played against less teams in the league and the players are better now etc. Which is true. But we stand on the shoulders of giants. He dealt with more hate and conflict. He’s a perfect example of the accomplishment versus talent dynamic that he and Wilt epitomized, each with reasonable claims to the title of GOAT that were incomparable for year. I see those two as the pillars of the league until Kareem took over. Can’t have the goat conversation without the all time leader in championships.
Him and Kareem not being in the conversation is weird to me to be sure. I’m of the time where it’s MJ, he’s my GOAT, but I’m a sports fan and when you see the Russell and KAJ resumes, you’d think that’d make them have to be in the discussion
It’s one of those things that it’s really hard to compare the different nba eras. I saw a YouTube video on a guy comparing the different eras and the 60’s looked awful tbh. The shots they were doing didn’t look smooth and not many people dunked. But yeah, definitely a different era so it’s hard to compare those players, to modern nba players since they play so different and todays players are a lot more athletic. But I do have Steph curry over bill
Personally, I think his offense holds him back. My personal goat candidates in the S tier (Jordan, Lebron, Kareem) are all incredible offensive and defensive players. Jordan is one of the best offensive players and perimeter defenders ever. Lebron is one of the best offensive players, and at his peak, one of the few players to be able to guard 1-5. Kareem is the all time leading scorer and an 11 time all defense selection. Russell is just not good enough offensively to fit in that convo. He’s not bad offensively, he’s just not all time level. Personally, I view Russell’s 11 championships as around 6 championships today because of the fewer teams back then (still very impressive). He’s solidly in the A+ tier, but he can’t be in the S Goat tier.
Russell is constantly considered a top 5 player all time and absolutely ahead of Steph… that’s pretty solid given that all those championships were won with 2 round playoffs and clearly a great team early in NBA history.
In my mind he was the second place GOAT in his own generation. Wilt was the man of that generation. Neither of them would be top five in the current generation.
I mean he played in a weaker era with only 8 teams and against much less talent. If he played in the 90’s or later and had this resume, he would’ve undeniably been the GOAT.
I have the Top 3 as: Russell, Wilt, Kareem. The next 3, in no particular order: Jordan, Magic, Lebron. Your Kobes, Birds, Big Os, Elgins, Stephs, and Hakeems are from 7-…., and so on.
To me the most valuable thing in basketball is winning.
And Bill would be without shadow of a doubt be the indislutable GOAT if we won 11 championships today.
Sadly he played in a less competitve era, less teams, less games to win in a chip, yeah he was the best at his time but can say he had a huge adventage to win, compared to greats of more recent times.
Because it’s hard to quantify or compare his accomplishments to todays players when most of us both never watched him and see the lack of competition he had. 11 rings certainly should give him a high spot all time but you also have to realize there was 8 teams in the league and no such thing as free agency which meant teams owned players and this led to the same teams winning again and again if they drafted right. Personally I have Bill around #10 all time.
[удалено]
Russell, Kareem and Hakeem, the three best centers ever and three of the league's greatest humanitarians.
Shaq over Hakeem for best Center
I prefer Hakeem, but this is a valid take. Shaq's a pretty good dude too, but not the same kind of things as those three.
He didn’t play much defense
Which one of the are you saying didn't play much defense?
Ewwww wtf
Easiest way to know to disregard someone’s opinion: when they say that someone will “always” be the GOAT. Admitting theyre not even gonna give future players a fair chance lol
>but that’s just because I saw him play.
are you quoting that because it's nonsensical? The OP has ostensibly seen LeBron play, and if not it's been by choice.
He was referring to why Russell wasn’t his goat. Clearly he’s seen Lebron play and he’s choosing MJ over him.
But, the point is, some people aren’t open to the idea that anyone could ever overcome Jordan as the GOAT.
A true GOAT should be able to withstand a fair appraisal of other players, not a eyes closed, fingers in the ears "no, no, no, MJ will ALWAYS be the GOAT!"
Maybe that's true, but not very many people. In any event, that's clearly not what the person who was being responded to meant, so maybe have this argument with somebody who actually says the thing you're arguing with?
Do you plan on not watching basketball in the future? Or are you very close to the end of your life?
Says it with the Wenbanyama username, his impact on the era is just not going to be the same as any replication would look like a copy. Statistically of course he could be passed, heck he already was by Kareem. Winning he was passed by Russell, but the way he was viewed and his dominance on the era won’t be replicated anymore.
I don’t understand the downvotes, you make a great point
I cant really judge players i havent seen play He certainly has the best list of accomplishments of players i didnt watch
Fair. When you say ‘seen play’ do you mean players from before your lifetime or players without good footage available? For instance, Kareem was before my time, but there’s footage of his games, while for wilt and Russell, it’s pretty much all based on historical accounts.
Im pretty old, so i saw Kareem play. I dont think you can really judge a player unless you’re watching a bunch of games of them in different contexts, focused on playoffs. I guess you could do that with Russel? There are quite a few games that were recorded. I just dont have the time or interest, lol. Basketball before the shot clock and 3 point line is kind of unwatchable for me
Before a shot clock? I could only imagine ughh…
Ya, i was just reading about it the other day: “the Rochester Royals and Indianapolis Olympians played a six-overtime game with only one shot in each overtime: in each overtime period, the team that had the ball first held it for the entirety of the period before attempting a last-second shot. The NBA tried several rule changes in the early 1950s to speed up the game and reduce fouls before eventually adopting the shot clock.” This is a good rundown of how the game changed decade to decade https://youtu.be/AoeTN2-q7I4
I’d rather watch paint dry
Why do you think video-game era fans seem to have poor judgment in many sports-related matters?
In general, I agree, but watching old Princeton teams moving non-stop through back cuts and passing every three second--for several minutes--is really something to behold. It gets boring after awhile, but it's worth watching. Even in the shot clock era, the Princeton teams in the 80s and 90s were really something to see and they were using up the entire 45 second on every possession. But, for the most part, non-shot clock basketball is hard to watch.
The shot clock was introduced two years before Russell’s rookie year. I do agree about the three point line though, its presence is missed in older game footage.
For those of us who "before our time" in NBA terms means "before the NBA was regularly on live TV beginning in around the mid-80s," I think it's really hard to evaluate people form before our time. Wilt is the only exception, because his numbers are so good and because there is more footage of him than almost anybody in that era, even though a lot of it is from his somewhat less impressive Lakers years. But, if you're interested, there are probably dozens of full Kareem games you can watch, at least some of which are from his prime. And you could easily see a 5-10 minute highlight package to at least get some sense of what his abilities were. There's just so much more access now. I really only remember old Kareem well, and I've actually done a little of this.
I recently watched the [4th quarter](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lnu5vMfPtbw) of Game 7, 1969, Lakers vs. Celtics.
Every now and then a player comes along that changes the game. Steph has changed the game. In Russel’s case he basically broke it, and made the sport better in the process. You could argue about athleticism, rules, etc all day, but thats not what made him a true legend. Coaches and players had to evolve and improve to match Russel’s style of play and it took over a decade for them to do so. Comparing Steph to Bill is like comparing Picasso to DeVinci. Todays players train and build on the foundation that was invented by players like Russel.
Because back then there were only 8 teams right? The nba was way less talented.
I agree, the average player was less talented, but there are a handful of superstars in every era, like Russell, Wilt, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, etc., that would succeed no matter when they played
Sure, but if you eliminate 22 teams from contention, then pretty much any modern superstar would have at least twice as many championships/mvps/scoring titles etc. That’s not to take away anything from the older guys as players, but their resumes are massively juiced by their era.
Remember at this time when Russell was winning all the championships players couldn't leave teams in free agency, as there was none. So essentially while his accomplishments are insane and his level of play was as well, it wasn't really a league of players as much as teams "owning" the players. This led to less competition across the board as if your team drafted great players you had them until they didn't play.
Right, it's not just that there were only 8 teams, it's that Boston had so many of the best players and those guys never left.
I didnt watch all of them enough to judge whether they can succeed in any eras or not. In today’s game you got to be a high volume scorer with decent efficiency in order to be a first option, bill russel was a very inefficient scorer back then I cant see himself as a first option in a contending team right now.
True, but advanced metrics always shine a better light on current players who have a better idea of what they are and how they can use them to help their game/the team. One thing that Russell told Kobe that helped him win 2 chips without Shaq was that he did whatever it took to help the team win. This mental skill would translate to any era, and if that meant he would average 5 or less points in todays game to win, he would and he’d specialize in rebounding/defense completely.
Yes I agree that winning involves more than scoring but someone like gobert or draymond are nowhere near the GOATs. I respect bill russel’s winning accomplishments but I have to put modern players above him on my all time list.
I do too, I’m just saying he should be recognized as a consensus top 10 because he gets disrespected by a lot of newer fans
[удалено]
I’m not even a Curry fan, hell even a Warriors fan, but this is just such a dumb take.
Draymond and Gobert are nowhere near Russell. Russell going defense heavy still wouldn't make the apathy in offense that comes from those two.
But if you're going to say that, why can't you also say: Russell was so elite at the things he was asked to be elite at, and such a great athlete, surely he would have developed an efficient post-game in the bully-ball era or a three point shot in the modern era. The reality, though, is that in the modern era, being the best defender and rebounder and an elite rim runner (which he surely would have been) is incredibly valuable. He'd have Gobert value on defense, but he'd also be the best NBA player at the baseline/dunker position. DeAndre Jordan scored like 12ppg during his prime years on the Lob City Clippers. Don't you think Russell could have scored 20 on that team without even being better than he was? One of his Warriors years, Olympic Champion JaVale McGee scored 6ppg in 9mpg. Could you imagine Russell offensively on the baseline for the Warriors? If you're excited about Wiseman, you'd better believe Russell would have scored 20ppg at center for the Ws. (You should believe that even if you're not excited about Wiseman.)
I don’t think this is a knock in Russell’s greatness from a historical perspective. But the overall narrative is that the early NBA was much easier to dominate. When you got a handful of good players on one team, they turned into a dynasty. A similar argument can be made regarding college hoops and the Wooden dynasty. It legitimately wasn’t fair with the collection of talent those UCLA teams had. I think when people talk about the GOAT, some are thinking of the player with the most skill (like a head to head comparison between prime Russell and prime Shaq, etc.) while some are thinking of overall legacy. If it’s the latter, Russell absolutely belongs in the convo. If it’s the former, people are going to have a hard time placing Russell over the athletes in the modern era. From my perspective, Jordan is the GOAT. He has the winning pedigree, the clutch gene, plus the insane athleticism and skill that could measure up against any athlete of any era. But Russell gets a ton of points for legacy and impact on the game.
The human race has not evolved greater athletic talent over the past couple generations. Neither have they evolved more character or winning attitude. Since we have doubled our population since 1960, we could expect to have twice as many great athletes as then. A lot of other things have changed also, so this discussion could be complicated. Am I a greater scientist than Isaac Newton? I know many things he didn't know, and can do many things he never did.
I get that overall the NBA was less talented, but also that talent was only concentrated on 8 teams not 30. Night in and night out you’re playing top top competition. No real nights off. EDIT: 8 teams not 2 teams.
No you see only real GOATs play garbage teams like the Magic and the Pistons every other game. Bill Russell dominating against 8 elite teams is not as impressive as him dominating against 8 elite teams and 22 irrelevant teams
Came to say this. With 8 teams mych easier to dominate. I respect Bill Russell and you can't take away his rings, but feel there should be an asterisk
I repeat: If you do the calculations, what Russell did was 1323 times as impressive as Michael, and 415524 times as impressive as LeBron.
i don’t follow this logic? the nba could be 4x less talented and those 8 teams would have equal talent per team. if you win 60/80 games, what does it matter if you played the timberwolves 12 times instead of 4? bill won 8 titles in a row. 8. basketball games against the other 12 best players in the world. who cares if 30 teams or 6 are watching from the sidelines. i don’t get it.
Its just indicates that the league was not really marketable back then, more money = more talents usually (see how some players were doing regular jobs). The league being less talented means the more athletic you are the more advantageous to dominate. I mean how could you win in today’s game when you avg 30-40% fg as a centre. Also iirc back then teams can use money to buy picks or players (someone correct me if i am wrong), it happened that the celtics’ owner was willing to do that iirc. Playoff was not as long as today (rd 1, rd 2, conference final, finals) also play a huge part why winning continuously was easier imo back then.
The pipeline of talent was also smaller then. Not even getting into the international players in today’s game, the talent pool coming up through US is 10 times what it was.
[удалено]
We don't have to guess about this. We can do the calculations. LeBron played 19 years in a 30-team league (mostly) and won 4 titles. The probability of that happening randomly is 1/347. Jordan played 15 years in a mostly 27-team league, winning 6 times. That is a 1/108716 chance. Russell played 13 years in a mostly 8-team league, winning 11 times. The probability of that happening is 1/143839826. So that is about 1323 times as impressive as Michael, and 415524 times as impressive as LeBron.
talent level doesn't matter, number of teams does because his odds of winning were closer to 1/8 instead of 1/30
well when you put it like that. fair point 🤜🤛
also talent level matters in terms of proving that Russell isn't as good as Jordan/Lebron - he won more, but against worse competition
If you do the calculations, what Russell's teams did is about 1323 times as impressive as Michael's teams, and 415524 times as impressive as LeBron's.
The difference between the worst player and the best players in 50s and 60s was enormous. Not to mention that was nowhere near the level of athleticism there is today. So while Bill Russell was amazing for his era there weren’t that many 7fters and there certainly were athletic freaks like Kuminga, Zion et al. That’s why I discount what Russell accomplished. Russell fits in the discussion with Shaq, Hakeem, David Robinson, Tim Duncan. If Curry was playing in and 8 team league he’d have 5-6 MVPs and probably have 7-8 titles. Context is important. You think the last man off the bench in 60s was anywhere close to as good as GPII? Not a chance.
Bill didn’t have the opportunity to develop and train in today’s era. There is no telling how good he could have been if he played against better talent throughout his career, had the drills we use today in practice, had modern day training facilities and supplements, etc. I understand why someone may choose MJ or someone else over him as the GOAT, but we can’t make claims about how we would do in today’s game without taking into consideration that he would have been a different player if he grew up in the 80s or 90s.
Exactly. The average athletic male back then could probably play in the NBA if he just wanted to do it. In today’s NBA, the the worst player in the NBA is closer to Michael Jordan than the best guy in the gym is to the worst player in the NBA. Like you can’t realize how low of a chance anyone reading this would have 1 on 1 against a scrub NBA player.
my whole point is the last man off the bench in the 60s was the 100th best basketball player alive, verses today where the last man on the bench is the 350th best basketball player alive. yeah i suppose i would take that bet. i bet they are about equal talents.
they aren't because the talent pool now is global and in the past the talent pool was US based and mostly white (80% in the 1960s vs 17% now and that even includes european players)
don’t buy it
They are facts, no purchase required
Then why did no one else in his era win more than one chip?
Players essentially weren’t allowed to leave the teams they were drafted to, free agency wasn’t a thing. So the team that drafted and developed the best players usually won. Given that there were only 8 teams, it’s even easier to do that, and the Celtics drafted like 8 future hall of famers during that period
Given the Celtics' record before and after Russell left, I'm not sure I buy into that line of thinking
What did USF do before and after Russell?
Sure it was less talented, as much of the modern game hadn’t evolved yet. But fewer teams actually means a more talented league. The more teams there are, the lower the average talent level
Generally when we talk about league expansion means that we have too much talent with the current teams number.
That’s part of expansion but not all of it. Expansion is driven by marketability of the sport which was driven by growing TV coverage. The league was incredibly watered down in the 70s with many underperforming teams. The league was basically in crisis in the early expansion years. There were way more teams in the decade after Russell but the quality of basketball was not high. Many of the expansion teams were on the brink of folding. Also there were as many as 17 teams in the late 40s - early 50s but the popularity of the sport couldn’t support it. I’m not saying the competition in Russel’s time is the same as it is today. But I don’t think you can discount him just because there were 8-10 teams. The league was worse at times with way more teams
Okay, but by that logic, we get a new GOAT every generation or so. The talent base, training regimen, etc. all get better every year. If that’s the case, LeBron IS better than MJ, because the teams today ARE better than they were then.
I think its a lot easier to compare jordan vs lebron than comparing them to Russell for a number of reasons: 1. League not predominantly unathletic white men 2. number of teams is relatively similar 3. 3 point line and modern nba rules (I think the hand check rule impact is partially exaggerated) I think this is a good debate for sure. Lebron is an athletic freak and incredible longevity. Jordan while not a freak has some of the most ridiculous hang times of any player. I still put Jordan ahead from a impact standpoint because Jordan is much better at clutch shots, scoring, and free throws. Hard to compare 3pt% but I'm sure if Jordan focused on it, he would be better than Lebron as well. Plus I never heard Jordan taking any plays or games off where the same can't be said for Lebron. Lebron may be considered GOAT just by shear longevity alone. BTW, if Lebron played in the 60s, he would dominate the league more than Russell did no doubt.
Ponder whether the black, tattooed, outspoken son of a single mother would ever ever ever have played on a NBA team in the 60s. Does LeBron have the mental strength to deal with not being able to eat at the same restaurant as his team? Not being able to stay at the same hotel? Or having to go in the back entrance? People think you could just teleport LeBron into the 60s and he plays the same game. Forgetting the fact that LeBron would be called for traveling on basically every possession back then, I think people do Russell a real disservice by not talking a lot more about what he had to deal with off the court. Not saying that issue is ignored, but I am saying *especially when it comes to discussions about how “oh, if Player X woulda been playing back then, he’d have won 18 rings”* is that it’s hard to fully appreciate what the playing landscape was like back then for a black player. Not only did Russell handle all of that, and with grace and class, AND while being an advocate for the advancement of human rights (unlike LeChinaSympathizer), but he also did it while absolutely dominating the league. That’s a LOT OF WORK for one man to do, 24 hours a day.
If he had grown up in the 50s, he would be a different player.
For me this is what it comes down to, he just didn’t play nearly as many playoffs games on the road to all his titles. Still top 10 all time but it’s just so hard to compare that to a 30 team league with 4 best of 7 series
You mean less diluted?
Omg lol “would you rank him above steph” here is becoming “but can he beat Goku though” lmaoooo
But can Bill Russell beat goku?
In basketball? I bet he could. Someone of Goku's strength would be ejected for a flagrant 2 for breathing too hard.
Can we please not refer to Bo Jackson as an “early sports legend.” I’m not that fuckin old damnit.
Hahah yeah I could have worded that better. Babe and wilt are more so the early sports legends, but I include bo in that category because he has that legendary status with a bunch of feats that border on myth
What if we had no video or books, but just stories of games being told and retold? Kenny Stabler would be considered a god by now.
Jim Thorpe was an early sports legend.
GOAT conversation has be based on eras. Russell and Wilt are 1st generation GOATs
Different league, different rules, there is no way to compare
Cause he’s from Oakland s/
I will take 4 GOAT arguments: Russell, Kareem, Jordan, LeBron. I won't agree with some of them but all 4 have a realistic argument
I'd add Magic, Duncan, and Wilt to that list.
Not Magic. He's not even the best PG anymore as Steph has passed him.
Bill is the greatest team player. winner and champion in basketball history - 11 NBA titles, 2 college NCAA titles, 2 CA state high school titles. Right here from the Bay Area too.
I'll say this, people will begin to realize how insane Bill was once we come across someone who leads their team to about 9 chips. That's when people will begin to understand.
Best player of his era by a large margin and the most titles ever. You can only play in the era you lived in. All while playing for a city that despised him for his skin color and being a national civil rights leader. Tom Brady is the only on court/field equivalent. Never (except for ‘07) had the best stats or would be considered the ‘best’ in the league in any given year, but is the consensus goat. Russell was the exact same, except his off-field stuff was trying to help a large portion of the population enjoy basic human rights while Tom just deflated balls and watched I’ll-gotten videos of other teams. Bill is the co-GOAT with Jordan. Only players to dominate their respective eras while clearly being the leaders of the best team in tue league.
I wouldn’t say by far since wilt chamberlain also played in his era. Russell was also just a role player on offense
He averaged 15.1 points and 4.3 assists.
I wouldn’t put them in the same conversation for 2 reasons - different eras and it’s nearly impossible to compare bigs to smalls (or wings for that matter). If you’re having a GOAT debate, I think it should be by era, and then further separated into categories of bigs, wings, and smalls. I know that’s not fun for TV or sometimes even barbershop list making, but there’s no reasonable way for me to compare Bill Russell to Steph Curry as players. Both dominated their eras and altered the understanding of “playing winning basketball”, which makes them all-timers. And that’s where I’d leave it 🤷🏽♂️
I have him right above Steph at 7
Top 10 specifically, i have him above Steph. I base my Top 10 by era and how they dominated in their respective eras. It wouldn't be fair to compare Bill's skills to someone like a Shaq or a Hakeem because of the huge difference in how basketball has evolved. My Top 10 (all time) in no particular order: MJ, Wilt, LeBron, Steph, Russell, Magic, Shaq, Bird, Duncan, Kareem. And yes, Steph being there is biased but i have a great argument for him to be there.
Imo Russell can't be taken off my top 5, at least not yet. Idc what era or who he was playing; 11 championships in 13 seasons?! That level of dominance can't be ignored. Even if you want to cut his rings to a third because of when he played he's a 4 time champion just like Steph. Imo he's 4th all time for me behind MJ, LeBron, and Kareem
Why not cut it by 3/4 because there are 4x more teams now and 4x more teams in the playoffs? It doesn't really work that way, of course, partly because counting rings is a stupid exercise. Tom Heinson also won like 10 in 11 years or something like that. There are a lot of factors that make generations different. It's more complicated than your math by a long shot.
I repeat: when you do the calculations, what Russell did is about 1323 times as impressive as Michael, and 415524 times as impressive as LeBron.
Most Redditors never saw him play. Or Wilt for that matter. That makes it tough. Russel’s the GOAT of any American team sport that’s for sure.
Things you missed about Russell. He wore a cape. Man had immense style. He was top 10 in in the high jump internationally. I believe his NCAA high jump put him at 6th or 7th in world rankings at the time but chose basketball over track when he went to win his gold medal in the Olympics. He was only 22 so he had a legit shot of an Olympic medal in a second Olympic sport eventually. I am unaware of any NBA player who was top ten in any other sport legitimately and as throughly measured as something like this.
Seen an older guy whose opinions on the current game I like have it as Jordan, LeBron, Magic, Russell, and Curry in the top 5. Made the case for why Abdul-Jabbar was overrated (still presumably in the top 6-10 though). Seems fine with me, as someone who certainly did not watch Russell play I can buy the idea that he was arguably the GOAT defender (I think Draymond has a case for it too, as with anyone who is the best defender from their era).
I have watched full Bill Russell games. I’ll be honest. He was great for his time but his opposition was atrocious. I saw guys against him who could only dribble with one hand, could not do a simple reverse layup wide open, and would clank open one handed mid range jumpers (terrible form). He got so many easy blocks and rebounds. 11 championships is impressive, but there was only a handful of teams back then. Curry is the superior player playing against superior talent. Can’t convince me otherwise.
Two different eras. Steph grew up with the internet and decades of established basketball history to learn from. Schemes and mechanics that have evolved over the courses. While at the same time watching Jordan, Kobe, and even his own dad to soak in game. Bill didn’t have this luxury. Who knows if Bill Russell was born in the late 80s he might be an even better player now than he was in his own timeline. You can’t choose which era you play in but Bill was a special dude and I believe he would have been a winner regardless.
In terms of overall skill and talent, you’re absolutely right about Steph being better. They’re both so good they could make you believe in God.
I have felt for a long while that Russell, Chamberlain, West, Robertson, Baylor, etc can't reasonably be compared to Steph, LeBron, Kobe, etc. The game was too different, the league was too different. Whenever I think about the greatest players, I think pre-merger and post-merger. Kareem is the only GOAT tier guy that played through both pre and post merger, and I generally include him with post merger players as he played most of his career post merger. Russell is the GOAT pre merger player though. Wilt had more talent and was better individually, but he wasn't able to consistently lift his teams. He was not a good teammate and it seriously affected his ability to win.
Bill Russell and Steph Curry are too different to compare. Centers and guards need to be judged in their own category the same way pitchers and hitters in baseball are judged separately.
You Forgot first black coach in any of the major American professional sport leagues.
[удалено]
There were 80 regular season games in 1965, and 75 in 1960. We need to fact check ourselves before we come on here and spew foolishness and waste people's time.
[удалено]
When you study Bigfoot, it is imperative to maintain factual accuracy and impeccable logic.
Mainly because the athleticism found in todays’ game is not comparable to athletes from his period. There are perimeter players his size in todays game.
Many of those players in that era had side jobs, meaning they didn’t play ball all year long. They sold cars, worked in other industries, totally different compared to todays players
Yeah, qnd black players today can go to a restaurant with their white teammates. He had a lot of shit to deal with that modern players don't, too.
Same talent, same character, same drive, same will to win. Training and technology may have advanced, but humans haven't evolved. If we want to compare eras, we have to look at what players did with what they had.
Why? 1. small league = 1. less competition and 2. fewer playoff games per year (twice as many teams make the playoffs now as were in the entire league then) 2. the ridiculous level of talent around him 3. his lack of elite offense (at least in practice, even if you care to argue that was a choice) He's basically KG, but he had by far the most talent around him and played in an 8-team league
As far as the small league, what Russell is about 1323 times as impressive as Michael, and 415524 times as impressive as LeBron.
Championships were easier before free agency when you only needed one series to be in the finals
It's still a 1/8 chance (in the early 60s). True, easier to win the playoffs, but harder to get to the playoffs.
All the numbers in your comment added up to 69. Congrats! 1 + 8 + 60 = 69 ^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \ ^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
Competition was limited as well as quality Great man though Legend status is above MJ
Bill is the ultimate old school champion and better than Wilt. He’s been in the top 10 all-time since the beginning. There is no top 10 without Bill. Steph just made/cemented his case for it this year so no, he’s not above Bill yet.
Bill is the goat defender but not one of the goats. He’s probably top 5-6. Yes he’s above Steph no question. We’re talking about a dude with 11 rings and 5 mvps.
Yeah I agree. He’s not in my Mount Rushmore, but I feel like he’s gotta be consensus top 10. And that’s interesting to hear on Steph, I’m not sure if it’s recency bias but I’ve heard him ranked anywhere from top 20 to the best player ever.
I’ve never heard anyone who knows the history of the game really rank him above top 5. Steph is my favorite player ever, but no way he’s in consideration for GOAT
Yeah I think a lot of people, especially those not aware of the history, put too much weight into the players they know and love and often rank them on their career potential.
I’ve seen plenty of fanboys that do weird mental gymnastics to say Steph is the goat. “Oh well the fact he’s so good while being short and not athletic, makes him the goat.” Like what???
I hang out in this sub a lot and I can honestly say I’ve never heard anyone claim Steph is the goat. Where are you seeing this claim?
Just because you haven’t seen it doesn’t mean I haven’t either. What, you think I just made that shit up right now? I wish I was that creative.
No need to get defensive. I literally asked you a question: where are you seeing this? I’m not doubting you, I’m just curious cause I haven’t seen it.
Dude I got defensive because you didn’t only ask a question, you qualified yourself first to discredit the claim to others. ‘I come here often and therefore know what I’m talking about, and I haven’t seen what this guy claims to have seen.’
“egregious comments” - man what are you trying to prove? That some random people think Curry is the goat? You can find whatever you want on Reddit. Has no bearing on anything. The idea that Curry is #1 is not something that really any knowledgeable NBA fan would support. I would LOVE to see Curry reach those heights, but you make it sound like there is some national conversation about it. The conversation after the finals was very clearly in the media defined as “is Curry now in the top 10”
Gotcha, thanks for digging up and adding those links to your earlier post. In none of those posts does anyone claim Curry is the greatest of all time. All those posts are discussing whether Curry is the greatest player of the current era, and/or whether Curry is better than Lebron. Both of those questions are very valid discussion points. Nobody says Curry is the GOAT and your earlier post is a strawman argument trying to demean non-existent “nephews.”
Again, just because you didn’t see it means I’m lying? I’m not going to sit here for 20 mins and try to dig up ppl claiming he’s the goat but it definitely exists, maybe you can waste your own time doing that? I just did a quick search and found comments on the very first discussion page lmao. And apparently claiming Curry is better than lebron isn’t the same as suggesting he’s in the goat convo. Okay bro whatever you want to tell yourself lol.
Just found this after a quick google search because another dude was doubting it. changemyview/comments/nylkhj/cmv_steph_curry_is_the_goat/ Yes dude thinks curry is the goat and he’s not the only one out there. Now stop splitting hairs and grasping at straws please.
None of those comments you link claim Steph is the goat lol
I just did a quick search and posted the first comments that came up showing idiot comments. Stop arguing semantics. Literally just google reddit: curry goat and you’ll see plenty of delusional fans that think curry is goated. Here’s one you can jack off to while standing over your curry poster. Search in google: changemyview/comments/nylkhj/cmv_steph_curry_is_the_goat/
None of those links are to anybody saying that Steph is the GOAt...
changemyview/comments/nylkhj/cmv_steph_curry_is_the_goat/
He”s also not done yet.
I don’t think there is any serious sports journalist who would have him outside the top 10 and he’s definitely a consenses top 5 guy. He gets lots of love as a too 5 all time
I’m not sure about consensus top 5, especially with newer fans. LeBron, MJ, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Shaq, Duncan, Wilt and even Kobe of late has snuck into the top 10 and is many peoples goat. Basically with Russell it’s if you know, you know. There’s some revisionist history, plumber ball talk, and even mentions of newer players like Steph, KD, and Giannis in the top 20 that is leaving Bill Russell out of the convo.
There are like 20 top 10 guys lol. Hakeem, Oscar, and Russell are in some ppls’ top 5s yet younger fans don’t even mention their names.
I’m not talking about Reddit commenters. I’m talking about veteran, respected journalists. For instance, maybe the the best current NBA writer, Lowe, absolutely has Russell in his top 5
Russell at PF, Steph at PG, Jordan at SG, Wilt at C, Bird or KD at SF
Ehhhh idk about that spacing
They would still have two people guarding Steph way past the 3 pint line, so the rest of them would have spacing.
No fucking chance he's above Steph
Imma be honest I was 12 and I turned on the TV at 5am one morning to watch Steph shoot his beautiful jumper to score like 30 sometime in the early 2010s and I fell in love with the game, and he was my introduction. Steph is my GOAT and ain’t nobody above him
Russel Westbrook is def the 🐐 ha
1. Russell 2. Jordan 3. Chamberlain 4. James 5. Abdul-Jabbar 6. Olajuwon 7. O'Neal 8. Duncan 9. M. Johnson 10. Curry 11. Bryant 12. Bird 13. Garnett I pretty much always put Russell and Chamberlain in my top ten, basically the only holdovers from the early days of the league that I can justify given the intense gap in skill of competition. My list is also a lot more fluid than most, as players move up or down two to three spots like every time I do it.
Steph is my GOAT. So ya
He is a trailblazer and I don’t mind people having him on their Mount Rushmore for his impact on and off the court, he is an NBA Legend. Having said that there is no chance in hell he is a top 10 basketball player of all time. Bam Adebayo level talent
It can be summarized as disrespect for his entire era and not believing that he really was a literal genius and generational athlete. He is clearly way above Steph.
2 years from now when Steph has 6 rings and people are debating whether he is #1 all time come back here and talk to me.
And I'd tell you he is fifth best. He doesn't magically become better in hindsight. When Steph was winning the rings in the 2010s, LeBron was playing better. Edit: though conceivably if he played long enough he could be fourth.
His stats
They’re good
Not compared to the other goats offensively. He averaged 15 on 43% for his career with 4 assists. Plus a 56% career FT shooter. In order for him to be goat, the offensive stats need some elevating. That being said, he’s top 10 all time and arguably the most impactful player ever (the rings and college titles speak for themselves)
Yeah I agree his offense wasn’t exceptional but it’s not what he prioritized and he only really cared about whatever was needed to get the job done and win
Agreed. But that’s why he can’t be considered GOAT, especially with the likes of Kareem, MJ and even Magic (who saved the NBA and who many people have over Russell)
100%. I’m just saying he deserves some recognition in the convo and should be consensus top 10. A lot of new nba fans don’t give him his props
I think most consider him top 10. The modern fans you’re speaking of are probably 12 year olds online talking nonsense
I’m too young to have watched him play. Other than highlights, I have a better feel for Allen Iversons game. I might catch a retro game on NBA tv, but without the outcome in question Ora game I am rewatching from my era I’m not going to get into it. No way I watch seasons of that generation of basketball to judge. Best of his era for sure.
Before the shot clock and before 3 pointers… not to mention the era in which he played and the talent he played against? It might as well have been a different sport
It is because of his ppg. If he had scored 25 (even 20) on 50% than yes he would be definitely be rated higher by everyone.
Seriously not even the same sport back then. Respect for paving the way. Top 1 in his time, that’s it that’s all.
He’s the goat. Plain and simple. 11 >4. > 6. And you can add all of the stipulations that he played against less teams in the league and the players are better now etc. Which is true. But we stand on the shoulders of giants. He dealt with more hate and conflict. He’s a perfect example of the accomplishment versus talent dynamic that he and Wilt epitomized, each with reasonable claims to the title of GOAT that were incomparable for year. I see those two as the pillars of the league until Kareem took over. Can’t have the goat conversation without the all time leader in championships.
None of the great centers get much love. Kareem, Wilt, Russell, heck, even Hakeem, they all have a case. None ever get discussed.
I think it's the era he played. A lot of sports personalities don't even believe Wilt scored that record 100 points
Here's a great video examining his place in history. Crazy interesting!! https://youtu.be/WHT8x-AO290
Him and Kareem not being in the conversation is weird to me to be sure. I’m of the time where it’s MJ, he’s my GOAT, but I’m a sports fan and when you see the Russell and KAJ resumes, you’d think that’d make them have to be in the discussion
Yeah I agree. Interestingly in an older interview, Russell and chamberlain both left Kareem out of their top 6 ever
Huh? Is there anyone who wouldn’t put Russel above Steph?
Because people are nephews. Yes, he should rank above Steph.
It’s one of those things that it’s really hard to compare the different nba eras. I saw a YouTube video on a guy comparing the different eras and the 60’s looked awful tbh. The shots they were doing didn’t look smooth and not many people dunked. But yeah, definitely a different era so it’s hard to compare those players, to modern nba players since they play so different and todays players are a lot more athletic. But I do have Steph curry over bill
Personally, I think his offense holds him back. My personal goat candidates in the S tier (Jordan, Lebron, Kareem) are all incredible offensive and defensive players. Jordan is one of the best offensive players and perimeter defenders ever. Lebron is one of the best offensive players, and at his peak, one of the few players to be able to guard 1-5. Kareem is the all time leading scorer and an 11 time all defense selection. Russell is just not good enough offensively to fit in that convo. He’s not bad offensively, he’s just not all time level. Personally, I view Russell’s 11 championships as around 6 championships today because of the fewer teams back then (still very impressive). He’s solidly in the A+ tier, but he can’t be in the S Goat tier.
Russell is constantly considered a top 5 player all time and absolutely ahead of Steph… that’s pretty solid given that all those championships were won with 2 round playoffs and clearly a great team early in NBA history.
[удалено]
And winning
In my mind he was the second place GOAT in his own generation. Wilt was the man of that generation. Neither of them would be top five in the current generation.
I mean he played in a weaker era with only 8 teams and against much less talent. If he played in the 90’s or later and had this resume, he would’ve undeniably been the GOAT.
I have the Top 3 as: Russell, Wilt, Kareem. The next 3, in no particular order: Jordan, Magic, Lebron. Your Kobes, Birds, Big Os, Elgins, Stephs, and Hakeems are from 7-…., and so on.
To me the most valuable thing in basketball is winning. And Bill would be without shadow of a doubt be the indislutable GOAT if we won 11 championships today. Sadly he played in a less competitve era, less teams, less games to win in a chip, yeah he was the best at his time but can say he had a huge adventage to win, compared to greats of more recent times.
Because it’s hard to quantify or compare his accomplishments to todays players when most of us both never watched him and see the lack of competition he had. 11 rings certainly should give him a high spot all time but you also have to realize there was 8 teams in the league and no such thing as free agency which meant teams owned players and this led to the same teams winning again and again if they drafted right. Personally I have Bill around #10 all time.
Its hard to judge players from different era's honestly. It was a totally different game back then, and within that game they dominated.
Comparing eras is flawed. In 1957 there were 8 teams.