This should be a good thread, not a single person here including OP watched a single second of 60s basketball.

Very nice work, well writtren and the argumentation is very solid.

Even though he himself was not a great offensive Powerhouse, Russell showed how important defense IS on basketball. He probably singlehandled created the “Defense WINS championships” narrative due to his hegemony.

You can question a lot of things from this era (plumbers players, fewer teams, lack of parity, etc…) but there is no doubt that Russell is the GOAT defender and the best leader a team ever had. He forged his legacy with these two attributes.

Here’s the thing: I didn’t know much of this shit and neither did most of the rest of you. It’s a great write-up. Even just reading it doesn’t give us a true sense of the dominance of Bill Russell, or the level of competition. If you’re talking about GOATs and you don’t know your history, shut the fuck up. Most of us should be keeping the conversation to Greatest Of The Era GOTEs.

OP, very cool writeup. I learned a lot.

Relative Offensive Rating compares your team’s offensive rating versus the rest of the NBA in that season. It only goes back to 1951, so the first four champions are missing. But currently here’s a list of every NBA Champion who has won the title with a negative Relative Offensive Rating:

• 1963-64 Boston Celtics: -4.5

• 1960-61 Boston Celtics: -3.4

• 1962-63 Boston Celtics: -2.9

• 1964-65 Boston Celtics: -2.7

• 1965-66 Boston Celtics: -2.6

• 1954-55 Syracuse Nationals: -2.2

• 1968-69 Boston Celtics: -1.7

• 1951-52 Minneapolis Lakers: -1.6

• 1961-62 Boston Celtics: -1.5

• 1978-79 Seattle SuperSonics: -1.1

• 1967-68 Boston Celtics: -1.1

• 2003-04 Detroit Pistons: -0.9

• 1958-59 Boston Celtics: -0.8

• 1953-54 Minneapolis Lakers: -0.7

• 1956-57 Boston Celtics: -0.4

• 1993-94 Houston Rockets: -0.4

• 1959-60 Boston Celtics: -0.1

All 11 of Russell’s rings were negative on offense, and the top 5 are all Russell.

Comparatively, the 6 greatest defensive champions ever are all Celtics. 5 of them are Russell’s Celtics:

• 1963-64 Boston Celtics: -10.8

• 1964-65 Boston Celtics: -9.4

• 2007-08 Boston Celtics: -8.6

• 1961-62 Boston Celtics: -8.5

• 1962-63 Boston Celtics: -8.5

• 1960-61 Boston Celtics: -7.6

Yep the hofers were basically all fake as people in the 80s looked back and were like this guy has 7 rings he needs to be in the hall.

I’ve always thought of it as the Russell Dynasty since those were two almost entirely separate teams.

That and what he did at USF are such outlier insane accomplishments that people will never be able to properly place it in context. Quite simply Russell is the greatest winner in any team sport ever. Whether that gives him GOAT chops is up to asterisks.

Good read, thanks for posting.

It’s really hard to talk about 60s basketball. There are some games available on streaming platforms, and the first thing you notice is the insane pace they played at. As you pointed out, the Celtics were a rebound and run team, Russell was the key piece to that. He also was the first dominant big man who didn’t just block shots, he tried to start the fast break with the block. Physically, he was really special. Agile, fast, strong - the only player who matched him in his era was Wilt, but we all know that Wilt took a long time to understand that basketball is a team sport. As soon as he did, his teams became actual contenders. But he still never beat a healthy Celtics squad during Russell’s prime, mainly because Russell was the perfect counter to Wilt. From the games I’ve watched, Russell was absolutely elite at closing out and negating easy lanes. He wasn’t just a good physical defender, he mainly was insanely smart. And he was possessed, similar to MJ. There are stories about him puking before games because he was so locked in and full of adrenaline.

Comparing eras is difficult, as the game has changed so much over the decades. Carrying actually was illegal back then, the 3pt line didn’t exist. People still took shots from distance, but the averages were comically low in comparison to today - which is understandable because the game was more about dominating the boards and scoring from inside.

To me, Russell absolutely deserves to be in any GOAT conversation, because greatness is more than just scoring. He was by far the most dominant defensive player of his era. And don’t forget the things he did off the court. He always stood up against racism and was a true spokesman for civil rights. The only player comparable to him in that regard is Kareem.

I think the main barrier is that fans today simply cannot wrap their heads around the idea of a defensive superstar

They will argue that Luka should be the mvp even though he’s a traffic cone on defense, but they always bring up the fact that Russell was just average on offense as a way to, in their minds, definitively dismiss any notion that he could be the goat.

You’re fighting the good fight

We’re never going to see one player affect any part of the game, especially defense, like that again

We have Wemby today who was made in a lab in every way and there’s no way he could achieve that level of impact

And it’s both that yes the game change, but also Bill Russell was an animal

I can remember being like 8 in ¹⁹⁹²⁄₉₃ and getting really really into basketball. The year the suns took the bulls to the finals: oddly enough I was living in Tucson and my best friend at the time was literally from Illinois so of course… a lot of back and forth… (fuck you John Paxson)

But the point is I remember asking my dad “who is the greatest basketball player ever?” And him saying “Big Bill Russell” and I said “better then Michael Jordan” and he looked me dead in the eye and said “yes”

I don’t know if that’s true but I do know I put some god damn respect on Bills name and get fucking annoyed when I hear “oh any player before the 80s doesn’t count” or “they were just plumbers”

Before Russell, the Celtics were a terrible defensive team with a core backcourt that had been together for years without playoff success. With Russell, they were winning almost exclusively because of their defense.

The Celtics were a first round exit the year before Russell got there.

They were bad defensively before him and immediately after he retired…

Multiple times you imply that Bill Russell solely carried the Celtics to a historically great defensive team, yet you fail to contextualize the roster before or after. The Celtics being able to draft both Russell and Tom Heinsohn is like Cavs drafting Carmelo and trading their 3rd best player and a pick for Lebron James. https://www.celticsblog.com/2012/8/22/3259135/the-boston-celtics-best-trade-ever-ice-capades-edition

And remember, they traded their third best player. They had Cousy and Sharman on the roster still to pair with Russell and Heinsohn (who won ROTY over Russell btw). There’s also a huge element of having to factor that a player can dedicate more to defense as their offensive load lightens. Having three 20ppg scorers to anchor the team’s offensive allows Bill to be unlocked on using all his energy for defense and rebounds.

Now lets talk about after Bill retires. Bill retires in the year 1969 at the very old age of… 34. After 11 championships the core of the Celtics dynasty is all aging and soon to be retiring, or have completely exhausted their physical prime.

Bailey Howell, age 32, just two years later is averaging 10 points a game and retires.

Larry Siegfried, age 29, just two years later is averaging 4 points a game and retires at the age of 32.

Tom Sanders, Age 30, just two years later averages 2 points a game and would then retire at the age of 34.

The super star John Havlicek is now one of the few members left from that dynasty team. Oh and I forgot to mention, in 1970-1971 season, the NBA added three new expansion teams; the Blazers, the Cavs, and the Braves (Clippers). So, the Celtics protect their best player in Havlicek, but are absolutely gutted in depth as some of their key players are taken away from them.

A lot of the write up strips nuance and context from the history of the league into why and how the stats are as is. You treat these BBall reference stats like they tell the entire story. The reasons why a lot of people downplay or don’t have as much respect to the early era NBA teams, is that players are retiring at a very young age. Players have random diets, random workout routines, and regularly abuse drugs. At halftime the players are drinking beer and smoking cigarettes, and meanwhile in the current modern era, we have tens of staff solely dedicated to managing the health of players. From professional cooks to doctors, the whole kit and caboodle. Does that mean Bill Russell and all those guys in that era are some part time plumbers, part time NBA players? No, Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain today would absolutely demolish and run the entire league, just like they were back then. I would suggest researching more into the back story and following the history of the league rather than just making assertions and assumptions based on the boxscore numbers.

They were not a good offensive team, at all. It just didn’t matter. At times in the 60s they were mischaracterized as such

Where does your Time article make this “mischaracterization”?

It clearly states Russell is the reason they are winning and that he is the best defender (but a weak scorer):

But the man who turned the Celtics into champions is the lean, agile Negro at center: Bill Russell (6 ft. 10 in., 220 lbs.), the league’s finest defensive player and its best rebounder until the advent of Philadelphia’s Wilt Chamberlain (who is four inches taller). On occasion, Russell can even out-rebound Chamberlain, more than makes up for his relatively weak, left-handed shots from the pivot (18.1-point average). “Boston will gamble with its little men, knowing that Russell will get the rebound,” says Syracuse Coach Paul Seymour. “He’ll jump right out of the building. You’d think he was ten feet tall.”

You also claim that there’ve been various other bizarre myths:

Deconstructing Bill Russell myths: The Celtics were not the “KD Warriors” of their era.

But who on earth has ever called the Celtics the “KD Warriors” of their era??

What about their opponents and their roster talent level?

Kind of reminds me of kids basketball. If you watch 10 year olds play, they play full court defense and good teams win games like 70-10 because the other team can’t dribble up the court and have like 25 turn overs

He played in an era where they smoked ciggies on the bench

It would have been better to highlight their actual playoff paths and the fact that Russell was 10-0 in game 7s (including 4-0 against Wilt).

They weren’t blowing teams out and having 16-1 playoffs runs like the 2017 Warriors, they just consistently won every pivotal game.

Russell was effectively so clutch that he gets penalized for it today. He’d unironically be rated higher by most people if he lost a couple of those game 7s to Wilt and their ring count was like 9 vs 4 instead of 11 vs 2.

Tl;dr: No one on the Celtics then would be shit without Russel, and then some. This post has revolutionized slander conversation.

Also:

The Pistons had a guy who was supposed to be talented but really just robbed stores and threatened to murder his teammates

Anything was happening then ig

Warriors were routinely the best defense in the nba

I’m one of the biggest fanboys of Bill Russell.

The is a myth, what he did was unprecedented and will never happen again.

What you did is an analysis, why it happened. 60’s were what they were, but.. dude did a 30p40r in a Game 7 NBA finals against Baylor and West there is no myth to debunk here.

Growing up in the 80s, it felt kind of like Russell was considered the greatest of all kind (not they GOAT debates were happening then). I recently read The Breaks of the Game by David Halberstam about the 79-80 Portland Trailblazers. He considered Russell the GOAT at the time - there’s a page or two on that.

One thing to note, that I’m surprised you didn’t mention, was that the Celitcs were really only the top team from 1959-1965. From 1966-1969, the Celtics were no longer the unquestioned top team as Wilt’s teams were considered the top teams from at least 67-69. The 1969 Celtics were actually underdogs, as they were last seed in the east of those Playoffs.

Great read

(1) I’ve never heard this criticism of Bill Russell once. Other players in the era, sure. But never him. So this smells a bit like a strawman that didn’t need to be written up.

(2) You glossed right over the part about 8, 9, or 10 teams. This completely changes the math on winning. It’s why all the stats and titles like this (pre merger) should be treated as separate, just like you see in the AFL/NFL merger.

Even with these arguments on statistical differences, in an 8 team league it’s much easier to see significant deviation from the mean.

(3a) So he did in fact have good teammates, just that some of them didn’t have a great playoff track record before him. That doesn’t necessarily make them bad players. Individual players don’t win playoff series by themselves (tho it would’ve been easier/more likely at that time). Even Michael Jordan needed Pippen to make it past the second round.

Giannis won three total playoff series (two #8 seeds), not making it past the second round without Jrue & Middleton.

If the Sixers win this year it doesn’t mean that Maxey & Embiid were scrubs before. Don’t need to put down Maxey or Embiid to credit LeBron.

Still, I’ve never “teammates” as an argument against Russell.

(3b) League size & structure rear their ugly heads again. In 1951 they playoffs were only three rounds, with a shortened round 1. They also lost their series 0-2 because that’s how short the first round was. The two teams on those finals played 14 total playoff games. That’s as many as this years Pistons eliminated in the 2nd round.

But again, I’ve never heard “teammates” as an argument to diminish Bill Russell.

Bill Russell is the goat, idc dont @ me

I watched. This is a bad take.

They were an incredible team. How many HOFers started on that team? Probably 6 or 7.

Yes, of course, their defense was sublime. Bill Russell was the greatest defensive player of all time after all.

But don’t forget what a great offensive player he was as well. No, he wasn’t Wilt, no one was, but he could drop 20 given night, and did.

Then you had Bob Cousy who is the OG Isaiah Thomas/Jason Williams/Magic. Sam Jones -what a shooter! Don Nelson off the bench was Draymond or Kurt Rambis.

Havlicek? Don’t get me started! !

And the coach? Oh, only the coach that coach of the year award is named after.

The last point you make is one I’ve tried to stress to people, that all the all time greats have had overlapping careers with other all time greats of other eras.

But people love to do the “plumbers” thing, but only for the 60s for some reason lol.

Like you said, Russel, Wilt, and Kareem all overlapped. When Kareem came into the league no one was marveling at how much better he was than Russel and Wilt, if anything, people were thinking he had some big shoes to fill and weren’t sure if he could do it.

Kareem played with Magic, against Bird, Bird and Magic against Jordan, Jordan against 80s and 90s stars who played against Kobe, Kobe against Lebron, Lebron against Steph, Steph against the current crop of elite NBA talent.

Obviously they played against more stars of each era, just noting significant ones of those times.

But the point is, at no point did any of us think that the new era was just light years ahead of the old. If anything, the old era was better in many ways still and the new era had to prove themselves.

So if Steph isn’t significantly better than Lebron, who wasn’t over Kobe, who wasn’t better than Jordan, who was right there with Bird and Magic, who was there with Kareem, who was there with Russel and Wilt…logically, we can see that all these guys were really fucking good and could not only have competed in any era, but have been dominant superstars in any era.

Great write up, it bothers me how often Russell’s career is framed as being a beneficiary of beating “unathletic shorter white men” while apparently having the “most help” when that was never the case. Wilt has an argument for being the most athletic player ever while Jerry West is one of the greatest scorers this game has seen, especially in the playoffs. The 1962 MVP race which I consider to be the greatest MVP race ever shows how stacked the top end talent was, Wilt, Baylor, West, Oscar Robertson all had legitimate cases for the award (Wilt averaged 50) yet who did the players vote for? Bill Russell.

I think people struggle to wrap their head around someone having GOAT level impact while not being a prolific scorer, the way we’ve been brought up to view basketball is mostly through the lens of getting buckets supersedes all other major skills so it’s hard to comprehend someone driving a dynasty through the prism of defence and rebounding.

Obviously the limited footage of the 60s would also make it hard for people to properly assess Russell’s career and unfortunately the stats/accolades which would have shown his dominance on defence weren’t in place (steals/blocks/deflections/DPOY/All-Defence). However, despite that it shouldn’t be a hot take to consider Bill Russell to be the GOAT.

I think your point about Russell’s all time ranking falls somewhat flat. Not because Russell wasn’t an incredible player, he absolutely was. We’ve just had that many incredible basketball players throughout the history of the game. It’s not an insult to Russell to rank Kareem higher if that’s how one plays it out, Kareem was amazing.

How was the competition though 

lol he was probably a hell of a player but basketball was a whole different sport back then , imagine how Rudy gobert would look without a 3 pt line or a defensive 3 second rule with only 11 or 12 teams in the league and way less athletic players ..

It’s massively understated how bad the other 7 teams in the league really were. The Celtics WERE the KD warriors of their era. That just looked very different 70 years ago

And because they played against plumbers

Russell sometimes didn’t even transition to the offensive end. He simply waiting for the ball to come back.

That Bill Russell fella is good but he’s no George Mikan! Now that was a ballplayer /s.

Good write up OP.

For me, it’s hard to care about pre-merger basketball. There are few stats, there were 8-10 teams… I’m sure Russell and Wilt were great but it was a different time and game. I don’t have either of them in my top 10.

Bill is criminally underrated. Possibly the greatest winner in all of sports. But sadly not enough people left were alive back then to see it. 10-0 in game 7s averaging like 18 points and 32 rebouns in those games, 21-0 if you count college and Olympic win it go home games. 

Thanks for posting this. Good analysis.

Bill Russell All-Time great winner/champion. Shortened it for you.

Quick note about Cousy and the team’s offense: He had one of the worst career drops in FG% from regular season to playoffs of any HOF-er (him and Karl Malone really stunk it up in this regard), and his FT% drop was even worse. It appears that he got in his own head about his playoff performances after 5 or 6 seasons since Boston could just never get it done in the postseason pre-Russell, which was sped up by how often he performed poorly against the Syracuse Nationals (now the Sixers), and then he just seemed to out-think himself when facing them and shoot like crap. The C’s only got better as he got worse in the early-60s, and they got no worse after he retired and was replaced by zero-time All-Star KC Jones.

I’m just saying that his overall effect on the Boston dynasty when it comes to producing offense in the playoffs was not good. Not good at all.

My personal biggest motivator in the Bill vs Wilt debate, is that the writers, fans and their peers from that era pretty overwhelmingly thought bill was the better player.

Loved learning that about Clyde, great for him.

I didn’t know that Tommy Heinsohn had the highest career FGA/min in both regular season and postseason (checked, and he’s ahead of Luka, MJ, and Barry on those two lists). Thanks for sharing that. He was called “Tommy Gun” for a reason - would shoot from everywhere, early and often, always had his hand up to indicate he was open.

The idea that Russell is not a true all-time great because of his era, but Kareem was depends on the idea that the NBA essentially transformed overnight

Speaking about the NBA not transforming overnight from the 60s to the 70s right after Russell retired: It’s important to note that the much ballyhooed Knicks “dynasty” of the early-70s was fully formed during the ‘69 season, and the “way over the hill, given no chance to do anything in the playoffs” Celtics of that year–the last of Russell’s career–took out NY 4-2 in the ‘69 playoffs. Russell at his worst, on the Celtics at their worst from his 13-year career, took care of the franchise that defined the next half-decade in the NBA that has remained revered in history.

Russell was also a huge negative on offense though. In 56 the Celtics were third in offense. The next year Russell gets drafted but only plays 48 games. They go 28-20 with him but 16-8 without. The offense falls to fifth in the league and is 7th the next year when he plays the whole season. Also all these stats about defensive rating are based on assumptions about the team’s pace being super high. When we look at actual evidence, such as against the player he’s most often compared to, Wilt, here are the objective numbers: 

Note: We don’t have pace data for the playoffs so I will be using the team’s number of true shot attempts instead. If you have a good estimate for playoff series pace let me know. Also, I’m only focusing on scoring and TS%. We don’t have turnovers so assists aren’t as valuable.

1960: RS: 37.6 PPG on 49.3 TS. Team took 131.5 TSA/game.  1st round vs Syracuse: 38.7 PPG on 51.9 TS (team 133 TSA/game) 2nd round vs Boston: 30.5 PPG on 55.9 TS (team 124 TSA/game) Rose in both series, but noticeably more efficient vs Boston, on slightly lower usage.

1961: lost to Syracuse in 1st round. Fell to 49.2 TS on same PPG as RS. 1962: RS: 50.4 PPG on 53.6 TS. Team took 129.2 TSA/game. 1st round vs Syracuse: 37 PPG on 53.8 TS (team 117.8 TSA/game) 2nd round vs Boston: 33.6 PPG on 56.5 TS (team 118.1 TSA/game) 1963: missed playoffs

1964: RS: 36.9 PPG on 53.7 TS Team 112.7 TSA/game Side note: why do people think this is better than 62? His rTS and volume were lower, the team’s offense was below average, the defense was only better because they added Thurmond, and the record was worse! 1st Round vs Hawks: 38.6 PPG on 61.1 TS (team 113.8 TSA/game) 2nd round vs Boston: 29.2 PPG on 55.4 TS (team 115 TSA/game) Finally Wilt is less efficient vs Boston than the other team. I guess the corpse of Bob Pettit is a weak defender. But he shot 41.5% from the line in the finals vs 51.2% vs St Louis, which has nothing to do with Boston’s defense. And maybe if his HOF teammates Thurmond, Guy Rodgers, and Al Attles did more than 11 PPG on 33, 26, and 34% shooting, he could win the series. It’s a team sport!

1965: RS: 34.7 PPG on 51.3 TS. Traded midseason, Warriors 4-34 without him before winning 2 of the last 3 meaningless games. 1st round vs Cincy: 27.8 PPG on 57.1 TS (team 114.6 TSA/game) 2nd round vs Boston: 30.1 PPG on 64.1 TS (team 114 TSA/game). Absurd output but failed to win

1966: First round out vs Boston. Actually a relevant drop this time. 33.5 PPG on 54.7 TS in RS with 119.2 team TSA/game to 28 PPG on 50 TS, though this is due to a 41.2 FT%, so again hurt by shooting luck. Plus three best teammates each shot 38% or worse so wouldnt have mattered.

1967: Finally wins the championship. 24.1 PPG on 63.7 TS in the RS (118.5 team TSA/game). 1st round vs Cincy: 28 PPG on 63.4 TS (119 team TSA/game). With Jerry Lucas at center instead of Wayne Embry Wilt detonates. 2nd round vs Boston: 21.6 PPG on 64.4 TS (119.6 team TSA/game) Why the win this time? Greer 29 PPG on 43% shooting, Chet Walker 21 PPG on 51%, etc. Teammates performed better! Some of this is his playmaking but he averaged 5+ assists in 1964, 66 as well so that’s not all. Finals vs Warriors: 17.7 PPG on 58.3 TS (127.2 team TSA/game)

1968: RS: 24.3 PPG on 55.7 TS (120.5 team TSA/game) 1st round vs Knicks: 25.5 PPG on 59.9 TS (114.3 team TSA/game) 2nd round vs Boston: 22.1 PPG on 55.7 TS (120.6 team TSA/game)

1969 is the last year Russell is in the league so we’ll stop then. RS: 20.5 PPG on 56.4 TS (109.8 team TSA/game) 1st round vs SF: 12 PPG on 52.8 TS (110.3 team TSA/game) 2nd round vs ATL: 19.2 PPG on 70.2 TS (103 team TSA/game) Finals vs Boston: 11.7 PPG on 56.5 TS (108.8 team TSA/game)

Overall, Wilt consistently got more efficient vs russell on less ppg, though his usage decline was small, with the pace slowing down in the playoffs as the team’s TSA/game also declined. People love to slander him for taking too many shots, well he didn’t in the playoffs!

What this exercise really showed to me was that Dolph Schayes Nate Thurmond and Wayne Embry were better defenders vs prime Wilt than Russell was, but that Russell shut down role player Wilt. And of course, having better teammates helps you win series.

Further, Warriors Wilt is the best Wilt. In his massive usage seasons he was leading good offenses, then in 64 with the loss of old Arizin and Gola and the addition of negative offensive player Thurmond, the offense tanked, but the defense rose.

In Philly his free throw percentage really cratered so his TS% was never that great outside of 1967. His defense was good then but even in his rookie year he was a great defensive floor raiser. But overall, Wilt was not a playoff choker, he just didn’t have the teammates.

Additionally, throughout his career he showed great shiftability, going from offensive floor raiser and defensive star on the Warriors to being a better passer on lower usage, but sadly his FT% tanked so he didn’t peak too much higher on the 76ers. I think Wilt over Russell all time is pretty clear, and I hope this thread helped dispel the myth that Russell locked down Wilt. If anyone did, it was Nate Thurmond and Dolph Schayes.

Back before pace adjusted stats were common it was harder to see this. The Celtics played at a very high pace, so just looking at their raw points for and against made their offense look better and defense look worse. Once you adjust for pace it comes clear they were a mediocre offensive team, and an absolute juggernaut on defense.

i feel like i am reading about this every day on here. what the hell?

In my head, Draymond is the defensive goat in the same way harden is the best shooter of all time. It’s just unfair to the conversation to even include Russell/Steph, you just gotta treat them as aliens

Back then, most players were trash offensively, if not trash in general. Most teams had 1 or 2 good players at most. The other 3-4 were basically college level athletes to the other guys.

Add on mediocre shooters (even in the paint) going against Bill Russell who was a beast defensively, of course his team didn’t need to be the best offensively. He was averaging 24 rebounds a game, and I have no clue how many of those were offensive.

The games were basically Rudy Gobert + Trae Young and 3 D1 college players that have mediocre shots from the field that would never go drafted today, and they’d be against another similar team, but maybe it was just Anthony Davis and 4 of those D1 players that can’t shoot from the field.

It’s unsurprising that players stood out more from their peers back then.

I think he was pretty good 

There were also only 8 TEAMS in the NBA when Bill Russell was winning those 11 chips.

I want to slightly push-back against part of the original premise in relationship to his teammates, because I do think you gloss over it a little bit.

The 50’s Celtics pre-Russell were entirely an offense-based team. Cousy and Sharman were the best backcourt in the league in their day, and that other hall of fame center, Ed Macauley, was one of the best scorers in the league. He was a bit more modern of a center on that end, not being afraid to take shots farther from the basket, but he also had some pretty brutal holes in his game. His slender frame made him struggle to defend bigger bodies in the post, and he was a badddd rebounder for much the same reasons. In the 1956 season, Macauley, their starting center, was FIFTH on the team in rebounds. Despite helping their offense be so potent, he was definitely a drag on that other side of the floor, and the Celtics were already overflowing with offensive talent.

So after 1956, Macauley (a hero of St. Louis anyway), was flipped to the Hawks for Russell. Russell, of course, is the complete and utter opposite to Macauley. He wouldn’t ever quite match prime Ed as a scorer, even in the more generous to scoring environment in the 60’s, but going from a negative on the defensive end to the literal most transformational defensive center of all time creates a MASSIVE difference. Russell could become a defensive nexus who helps empower the high paced transitional basketball the Celtics would push through their dynasty. And furthermore, any scoring “loss” that might have been caused in the short run by swapping Ed for Bill Russell? This would be instantly soothed that exact same year- they drafted Tommy Heinsohn, who won rookie of the year (in a bad choice) over Russell. In totality, the situation that Bill Russell stepped into was completely and uniquely built for him to absolute thrive- his skill set was the missing piece from the very beginning on a talented team that needed one of his archetype. It’s not to say that he’s bad for it, it’s just that he did benefit from immediately entering a situation that allowed any offensive weaknesses to be downplayed and fixated on the strengths.

And yeah, you touched on it already- after Russell retired in 1969 and the team dipped, it wasn’t just because of him. Sam Jones was gone, Bailey Howell (a star before he ever came to Boston) was knocking on the door of being washed, and just as importantly, Russell opened a gaping void of NO viable center to contest the center talent in the league at the time. The core was aging out outside of Hondo, and the interior defense and rebounding dried up. It wasn’t simply a “Russell is gone and decent center play coudln’t fill the void,” it feels more like a “Russell is gone and we are rolling out the three stooges.” They picked up more in 1971 with rookie Dave Cowens, who was really good, and I think that points to that idea too.

Jordan fanboys knock Russell’s era so they can save Jordan from winning much less than Russell.

Yet when LeBron fanboys knock Jordan’s era the Jordan fanboys cry oceans of tears lol.

For the folks that say the old folks couldn’t ball,

Yeah, it was against the rules to dunk.

They NEVER consider how those same folks would have played under modern rules.

Edit: Dunking was banned at the collegiate level and never by the NBA.

the premise is based on a comparison I’ve never’heard. I thought Russel’s role was common kn

Not gonna read this because I’ve never met a single person who thought the Bill Russell Celtics were an offensive juggernaut and not exclusively a defensive powerhouse.

“It’s massively, constantly overstated how stacked the Celtics were.”

Bullshit.

He was the Angel Reese of his era. True legend.

He played on a team full of hall of famers lol.

Nice write up.

Having only eight or so teams in the league was also very helpful to the dynasty efforts.