Phil Jackson says he’d take Bill Russell over Michael Jordan

From Ball Don't Lie:

Phil Jackson says he’d take Bill Russell over Michael Jordan to start his team

NBA coaching legend Phil Jackson is something of an authority on what it takes to win championships, but he typically hasn't weighed in on the more contentious basketball topics about which players are best or give their teams the best chance to win. In promoting his new book "Eleven Rings: The Soul of Success," Jackson has switched up his approach and made some stronger statements on these debates. For instance, he's directly compared Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant for the first time ever, adding to an argument that probably won't stop even after science allows us to pit their clones against each other in hand-to-hand combat.

However, that does not mean Jackson believes that Jordan is the best player ever to serve as the centerpiece of a championship team. In a new interview with Time.com, Jackson gives that edge to Boston Celtics great Bill Russell. As transcribed by Ben Golliver of The Point Forward:

“In my estimation, the guy that has to be there would be Bill Russell. He has won 11 championships as a player,” Jackson said in an interview with Time. “That’s really the idea of what excellence is, when you win championships.” [...]

Jackson dodged when asked to select between Jordan and Lakers guard Kobe Bryant, whom he coached to five titles between 2000 and 2010.

“I would flip a coin,” he said. “Whichever one came up heads or tails, I’d take that person. They were that good.”

Jackson's argument is pretty simple: Russell beats Jordan in championships, 11-6, so that must mean he's more likely to win with this hypothetical team not bound by the limits of the space-time continuum. There are several complicating factors here, including the difficulty of comparing players across very different eras or the interplay of each legend and his teammates. Whatever the case, Jackson is giving Russell credit for his career, which doesn't easily fit into the binaries occupied by Jordan, Kobe, LeBron James, and other scorers.

In a way, winning this debate has become Russell's identity as one of the greatest players in basketball history. Many pundits have called him "the greatest winner," a designation that relies primarily on the sheer number of titles he won. Unfortunately, the description often doesn't go beyond that figure — it's used as shorthand for a host of cliches about what it takes to win rather than as an entry point to discuss the entirety of Russell's important legacy both on and off the court. He is remembered primarily as the most important player on the most successful dynasty in NBA history, not someone who changed the way defense was played at every level of the game or a dynamic talent of uncommon skills and athleticism. The "greatest winner" classification has simultaneously locked down his place in history and obscured the qualities that made him so important in the first place.

This is only so sad, because Russell's place near the top of these lists ensures that he won't be lost to history entirely. However, it's worth wondering exactly what placing him — or anyone, whether it's Jordan or Wilt Chamberlain or some active star — into a ranked discussion does to our memories and considerations of these players. Elite traits get defined as inferior to those of others, nuance falls away in favor of reductionist argumentation, etc. It's as if we argued over whether the god of thunder were greater than the god of the sea, forgetting that either deity holds more power than we can ever dream of. These rankings can be a fun diversion, and it's no surprise that they exist. It remains an open question as to what purpose they serve.

Gyso,
Thanks for the article.
I wonder if the actual conversation, since they're talking Bill Russell, went into Red's "territory"? I suspect it's a sensitive subject to PJ.

AK

well duh..

Seems that time mellows even a historically arrogant jerk like Jackson.

I was reading this about 15 minutes ago before I even came here. And logically, how could you even begin to build a team without BR?

People always call MJ the GOAT, but on what grounds? I'd say Top 3 if anything.

For years, every debate I’ve seen over who has been the greatest NBA player of all-time has missed the point. Those people who didn’t have frequent exposure to those Russell teams have no capacity for understanding how relatively seldom Bill Russell (or any other Celtic of the time) found it necessary to utilize his skills to the absolute max.

The perfect storm known as Russ’ teammates was arguably the greatest supporting cast in NBA history. Moreover, neither Russ nor any of his key teammates (with the exception of Jim Loscutoff) was ever injured seriously for a prolonged period of time. I won’t quote the number of games lost to injury because I did so on this board a couple of months ago, but the absence of sustained injuries was phenomenal. And a major reason for the lack of debilitating injuries was that they could pace themselves so much of the time.

Russ could easily have padded his stats. But those teams believed in doing only what was required to get the job done—and succeeding together. They were able to conserve energy during a game and turn it on virtually whenever they wished. They sometimes went on temporary winning streaks because winning came so naturally. But they were mentally and physically
built for the long haul. And that is precisely why they set such unattainable records in terms of what was most important: championships.

The fact that there were so many complementary players who were superb in their roles meant that Russ didn’t need to score more, assist more, rebound more, or even defend more
consistently:

• In terms of scoring, he had people like Heinsohn, Sam, Ramsey, Havlicek, Sharman, Nelson, Siegfried, Cousy, Willie Naulls, and Howell to carry the load. In fact, he could often take offensive possessions off and rest in the backcourt because the Celtics could play four on five so successfully.

• Where assists were concerned, Russ was one of the best ball-distributing centers in the history of the game. But there was always a primary ball distributor/floor general such as Cousy, K.C. and even Havlicek in Russ’ later years. And the selfless nature of the entire team meant that assists were always spread around. Even Heinsohn, known as a “gunner,” averaged two assists per 29.4 minutes per game in his career.

• In terms of rebounding, there were almost always four to six Celtics other than Russ with at least five rebounds per game (and there were as many as seven of Russ’ teammates in at least one season). For example, in 1959-60, Gene Conley (primarily used as a sub for Russ) averaged 8.3 RPG in 18.7 MPG over 71 games. (Oh, and by the way, Geno also won 12 games in 1959 and 8 games in 1960 pitching for the Philadelphia Phillies.)

• When it came to defense, Russ had huge help from individuals like Satch Sanders, Havlicek, Loscutoff, Conley and K.C. But the entire team was able to play sufficiently strong defense that the team never had to weaken itself by resorting to what’s now known as “team defense.” And Russ was only occasionally required to exert his utmost on defense. In fact, he used to allow opponents such as Wilt to score on certain moves early in the game so the opponents would be lulled into depending the same moves in the clutch and winding up with the word
“WILSON” etched permanently on his teeth.

It was a similar philosophy that enabled Cousy to “waste” long passes to Satch to reward him for running the floor, even though he knew Satch had difficulty seeing far enough to haul in the passes. Wasted possessions? No sweat. All that was required was to make up the points down the road, if required. No sweat.

Those teams routinely played at a high level in overdrive and, when the need arose to widen a lead or to cut into an opponent’s lead or to close out a game, they used a simple formula: play harder. And, when a run eventuated from the extra effort, Red could sustain the energy by replacing future hall of famers with other future hall of famers.

So, perhaps it’s possible to evaluate the individual greatness of certain players on certain teams because those players have been so constantly forced to play their maximum games. But where the Russell Celtics are concerned, forget it! Any evaluation of a Russell Celtics individual will, almost by definition, underestimate his capacity for greatness. And, that’s never
more true than with Russell himself.

The greatness of those teams overshadowed the individual greatness of the players. As I’ve said many times, they basically toyed with the game, seldom got badly out of synch in terms of chemistry, were on cruise control a fair amount of the time, and usually had so many extra gears into which they could shift on demand that only
in certain games (e.g. the Balloon Game or the Selvy Game) did any of them have to play all-out for nearly the whole game.

Sam

@Sam: Very insightful post

The game has certainly changed a lot. There is so much one-on-one/iso play now that people judge being the best on how they play individually. The "team" aspect has eroded with several exceptions (Spurs, Grizzlies, Bulls, Pacers, etc).

These days, physical talents seem to be more highly regarded than actual basketball skill.

kj88,

You'd be surprised. This is an old contentious Boston Globe topic that would always degenerate into suspensions, life threats, threats to one's mother, derogatory comments about one's mother, expulsions and fines for posters from the site. If you ask our current moderator nicely whose forum site carries his name, he'll probably tell you topics like this over there were the straw that broke the camel's back and created this infinitely better forum we have the privilege of posting to/on now.

As for the article above and Phil Jackson, finally!! Someone with some authority saying what we already knew! I'm not a big Phil Jackson fan but we'd all like him a lot more if he had been coaching the Celtics with his 11 championships during his coaching career and not the Bulls and certainly not the Lakers. We actually dislike him out of respect for what he did against us. He knows what he is talking about.

My question is, where was PJ when we needed him a few years over at the Boston Globe Celtic Forum?!! Although I suppose those tool bags over there would have tried to rip PJ a new one too if he said the above at BGCF.

db

K_J, I couldn't agree more. The world (including NBA fans) has consistently become more hedonistic in wanting to be entertained with sensationalism than with executional beauty.

I probably went to more Celtics practices than Celtics games in those days, and I was always intrigued by how hard they had to practice what looked like very instinctive moves.

The classic involved the so-called "Ohio Play" that basically turned the 1969 Championship series in the Celtics' favor. Early in the season, Coach Russell had missed a practice, and Havlicek and Siegfried (two Ohio State grads) convinced the Celts to try to learn a so-called "pcket fence" play run by Ohio State.

The play involved setting a triple pick and was designed to be executed in about 5 seconds. The first time they tried it, the play took 25 seconds. They kept practicing it throughout the season, and they finally got it down to under 10 seconds. But they never tried it in a game throughout the entire season and the playoffs up to the series with the Lakers series.

In Game 4 of the finals (in Boston), with Boston trailing 2-1 in the series and 88-87 in the game, Emmette Bryant made a steal, giving the Celts the ball with 7 seconds on the clock. In the huddle, Coach Russell called for the "Ohio Play."

The triple pick worked perfectly, and Sam took a pass behind the screen and went up for a long jumper at the top of the key. But he slipped as he jumped. He had the presence of mind to put extra backspin on the ball in hopes that it would cause a soft rebound that would fall into Russell's hands. But instead, the soft shot rolled around the rim and in—which was a good thing because Russ had taken himself out of the game during the timeout before that play.

If not for all that frustrating practice for nearly an entire season, there very likely would have been no "Balloon Game" and no Celtics championship.

http://www.vladtv.com/blog/107678/32-1969-nba-finals-game-4-the-picket-fence-play/

I guess most of today's fans don't want to be bothered with that sort of lore. It's all about dunks, flops, posturing, and baiting now, and what the heck? Fans pay for it. But it means a lot to me and a number of people on this board, and I'll always be extremely grateful that I was born when I was.

Sam

Dbrown4,
You would be surprised - there are 3 (three) posts only on BDC on this topic.
Well, as of right now.
I guess, not that many trolls. And other tools are busy googling about who is Bill Russell and how many dunks per game MJ had.

AK

Sam,
Thanks for the clip. Unfortunately, at that time they didn't do re-play and slow motion. Also, it shows only Havlicek's pass and Sam's shot but not the screening itself that, I suspect, left Sam completely open.

AK

sinus007,

I haven't been back to BDC basically since we all pulled up. But that is surprising. Sam has graciously banned me from going there, so I don't tempt fate by trying or looking a gift horse in the mouth. (JK, Sam, but even if you did or put a filter on my computer, I would be very appreciative.)

db

P.S. "Trolls." That's the word I was looking for but tool bag works as well!

Dbrown4,
I go there very often but don't post much. Main reason, despite absence of LAL trolls, is that most thread even good, interesting one very quickly go down the drain of: poster A:"Poster B is an idiot because..." with reply from poster B "Poster A is a complete moron".... - you've got the picture.

As for "trolls", I prefer your way: there are trolls and there are tools (I'm talking about BDC).

AK

sinus007,

Ah, the memories...You are much braver than I. I really haven't missed it much at all. I did like it when bobheckler would launch onto someone. He would do it so well with all his facts lined up. It was brutal and hilarious all at the same time. Look at him now...jetting off to New Zealand, wherever the wind takes him!! (Bob, you know I'm just messing with you and would never provoke or poke the bear. We're all envious and wish we were hanging with you now, wherever that is!)

db

I guess you know where I fall in this debate.

Bill Russell was the GREATEST basketball player I ever watched. He was surrounded by some of the most motivated, talented players during his duration playing with the Celtics, and we can thank Red for that.

The core of the great Celtic teams always seemed to be helped by players Red picked up year to year. Red had a knack of finding guys who had talent and were hungry. Guys who knew what their role was and accepted it.

Sam Jones, John Havlicek, KC, Satch, Sharman, Ramsey, they all were great players in their own right, but, it was as a team that they won, and Russ was the heart of it all.

As far as BDC is concerned, I just don't think there are that many "intelligent"
members anymore. Guess they all jumped on the Miami bandwagon. They were quite a crew though, thank God we have the Forum instead!

Rosalie

dbrown,

I tried to find a longer clip but was unsuccessful.

I assume you're kidding about my "banning" you from going to BDC. As if I had such power. Heck, as I said earlier, I post over there once in a while myself. I never had anything against BDC and am on good terms with those who run it. I just got frustrated with the lack of control over the obvious troublemakers. So I started this forum thinking I could easily zap proven troublemakers. Aside from a couple, early on, it hasn't been necessary. So now I'm wondering whether I should be frustrated because I don't get more "zapping" chances. Some people are just never satisfied, I guess. LOL.

There are times when I wish we all lived closer together. There's been some talk of having a board party at my place on Cape Cod in mid-July, but it's difficult to find places to stay for only one night. (Even motels and inns usually have a three-night minimum at that time of year.)

I've also been wanting to have a board get-together for the express purpose of showing some of my old Celtics footage (one or two CDs in particular) with a dinner afterward. The problem is where to hold it so the maximum number of people can attend with the least amount of hassle and expense. Talk about frustrating!

Sam

As far as kidding, Sam, guilty as charged. I wouldn't have minded if you did, though. You are the boss/moderator over here!

I like your board idea. I could probably use a break around that time.

db