Why Bill Russell’s 11 Rings are the Most Overrated Achievement in Basketball

https://www.todaysfastbreak.com/nba-east/atlantic/boston-celtics/why-bill-russells-11-rings-are-the-most-overrated-achievement-in-basketball/



Why Bill Russell’s 11 Rings are the Most Overrated Achievement in Basketball




KELLY SCALETTA



Nov. 1, 2013 - Boston, Massachusetts, U.S - Bill Russell at dedication of his statue at Boston's City Hall Plaza



Bill Russell is an all-time great, but his “greatest” feat is the most overrated feat in basketball. While his 11 rings are significant, it’s not nearly as impressive as it sounds. That’s because winning rings, and winning them consistently, weren’t quite the same thing then as they are now.

There are primarily two reasons for that:

The league was smaller.
The league was much more stable, especially at the top.

The first thing to consider is the size of the league, which for the bulk of Russell’s career was just eight teams. Statistically speaking, that’s a huge advantage. Even if we’re speaking just randomly, the difference is massive.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that each year, each team has an exactly equal chance of winning the title (which isn’t true, but we’ll get to that later). The odds of winning a title one year would be 1-in-8 or .125). The odds of winning it two years in a row would be 1-in-8^2 or 1-in-64 or .016. Three in a row would be 1-in-8^3 and so on down the line.

So, the odds of completely random winning 11 titles would be 1.55E-10 which while still tiny, are nothing compared to what such a feat would be today. Because now the league is 30 teams, so a random chance of winning one year in a row is 1-in-30, or .33. Two years in a row it’s 1-in-900 or .001. And to win 11 years in a row would be 5.65E-17—or roughly 2.7 MILLION (!!!!) times has hard as it was in Russell’s day.

In fact, winning 11 rings in Russell’s era is much closer in terms of statistical achievement to winning six rings in the current age (1.37E-09).

But that’s only if we’re talking about things being random. And they aren’t. The league is significantly more stable at present than it was when Russell was dominating the league. Russell played in an era when there was no such thing as free agency. The only way players swapped teams was if they were either cut or traded.

As a result, teams were more stable—particularly if they were successful. And the Celtics were definitely successful.

There is a proven correlation between winning and team continuity. Basketball-Reference has measured continuity over the years based on what percentage of minutes played by a team in a given season were by players on the preceding season’s roster. They have the continuity for every team, ever here.

Now, a big part of what is amazing about Russell’s career is what a constant he had during the entire scope of it. After his rookie season, the Celtics’ lowest continuity ever fell during Russell’s career was 80 percent. And that was in the 1966-67 season, the year he didn’t win the title.

The graphic below shows every team’s continuity from every season. The black circle engulfs an era in which Boston had a continuity of 80 percent or higher 14 times in 15 years. The green shape shows the span of Russell’s career, minus his rookie season (because his addition was the bulk of the reason for the change in continuity).





And it’s not like that team was a bunch of scrubs. He played with 16 unique Hall of Fame players for an aggregate of 83 individual seasons. That’s an average of six Hall of Fame teammates per season!!! He never had fewer than three Hall of Fame teammates in a season, and in 1962-63 he had seven teammates who would go on to be so honored.

Imagine in this age if you had a rotation of eight players who were future Hall of Famers!

So, not only was it just statistically easier for Russell to win 11 titles, he was also playing with a stacked team that seldom changed. They grew to know one another and trust one another. Certainly these are arguments for the 60s Celtics being a great dynasty but as far as Russell winning 11 rings, that has a lot to do with him being drafted at the right time.

He happened to be the player that spanned a gap of what would essentially, slowly transition over time. Bob Cousy, Tom Heinsohn, Andy Phillip, Frank Ramsey and Arnie Risen became John Havlicek, Bailey Howell, K.C. Jones and Sam Jones. And while that transition is impressive, it’s not that different from what the present day San Antonio Spurs have done in a league where it’s far more challenging to do it.

Russell was a great player, and the Celtics were a great dynasty, but comparing his rings or their title run with the current NBA is just specious. It’s statistically much more difficult today, and more importantly, it’s logistically close to impossible to keep that much talent together.



bob
MY NOTE:  First of all, PLEASE DO NOT SHOOT THE MESSENGER!

Secondly, I'm going to let the rest of you take a cut at this before I do (I'm expecting Sam and Swish, in particular, to go a little crazy here).  Myself, I'm going to need a few tequilas and meditate before I'll be able to get my blood pressure down to where I'll be ready to surgically dissect the little shit, rather than just going Viking on him.


.

Let me meet this writer face to face and I'm willing to go vegan if I can't knock him on his @$$ for being an idiot faster than anyone on this board can tell me what reds last name was....

bobheckler wrote:https://www.todaysfastbreak.com/nba-east/atlantic/boston-celtics/why-bill-russells-11-rings-are-the-most-overrated-achievement-in-basketball/



Why Bill Russell’s 11 Rings are the Most Overrated Achievement in Basketball




KELLY SCALETTA



Nov. 1, 2013 - Boston, Massachusetts, U.S - Bill Russell at dedication of his statue at Boston's City Hall Plaza



Bill Russell is an all-time great, but his “greatest” feat is the most overrated feat in basketball. While his 11 rings are significant, it’s not nearly as impressive as it sounds. That’s because winning rings, and winning them consistently, weren’t quite the same thing then as they are now.

There are primarily two reasons for that:

The league was smaller.
The league was much more stable, especially at the top.

The first thing to consider is the size of the league, which for the bulk of Russell’s career was just eight teams. Statistically speaking, that’s a huge advantage. Even if we’re speaking just randomly, the difference is massive.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that each year, each team has an exactly equal chance of winning the title (which isn’t true, but we’ll get to that later). The odds of winning a title one year would be 1-in-8 or .125). The odds of winning it two years in a row would be 1-in-8^2 or 1-in-64 or .016. Three in a row would be 1-in-8^3 and so on down the line.

So, the odds of completely random winning 11 titles would be 1.55E-10 which while still tiny, are nothing compared to what such a feat would be today. Because now the league is 30 teams, so a random chance of winning one year in a row is 1-in-30, or .33. Two years in a row it’s 1-in-900 or .001. And to win 11 years in a row would be 5.65E-17—or roughly 2.7 MILLION (!!!!) times has hard as it was in Russell’s day.

In fact, winning 11 rings in Russell’s era is much closer in terms of statistical achievement to winning six rings in the current age (1.37E-09).

But that’s only if we’re talking about things being random. And they aren’t. The league is significantly more stable at present than it was when Russell was dominating the league. Russell played in an era when there was no such thing as free agency. The only way players swapped teams was if they were either cut or traded.

As a result, teams were more stable—particularly if they were successful. And the Celtics were definitely successful.

There is a proven correlation between winning and team continuity. Basketball-Reference has measured continuity over the years based on what percentage of minutes played by a team in a given season were by players on the preceding season’s roster. They have the continuity for every team, ever here.

Now, a big part of what is amazing about Russell’s career is what a constant he had during the entire scope of it. After his rookie season, the Celtics’ lowest continuity ever fell during Russell’s career was 80 percent. And that was in the 1966-67 season, the year he didn’t win the title.

The graphic below shows every team’s continuity from every season. The black circle engulfs an era in which Boston had a continuity of 80 percent or higher 14 times in 15 years. The green shape shows the span of Russell’s career, minus his rookie season (because his addition was the bulk of the reason for the change in continuity).





And it’s not like that team was a bunch of scrubs. He played with 16 unique Hall of Fame players for an aggregate of 83 individual seasons. That’s an average of six Hall of Fame teammates per season!!! He never had fewer than three Hall of Fame teammates in a season, and in 1962-63 he had seven teammates who would go on to be so honored.

Imagine in this age if you had a rotation of eight players who were future Hall of Famers!

So, not only was it just statistically easier for Russell to win 11 titles, he was also playing with a stacked team that seldom changed. They grew to know one another and trust one another. Certainly these are arguments for the 60s Celtics being a great dynasty but as far as Russell winning 11 rings, that has a lot to do with him being drafted at the right time.

He happened to be the player that spanned a gap of what would essentially, slowly transition over time. Bob Cousy, Tom Heinsohn, Andy Phillip, Frank Ramsey and Arnie Risen became John Havlicek, Bailey Howell, K.C. Jones and Sam Jones. And while that transition is impressive, it’s not that different from what the present day San Antonio Spurs have done in a league where it’s far more challenging to do it.

Russell was a great player, and the Celtics were a great dynasty, but comparing his rings or their title run with the current NBA is just specious. It’s statistically much more difficult today, and more importantly, it’s logistically close to impossible to keep that much talent together.



bob
MY NOTE:  First of all, PLEASE DO NOT SHOOT THE MESSENGER!

Secondly, I'm going to let the rest of you take a cut at this before I do (I'm expecting Sam and Swish, in particular, to go a little crazy here).  Myself, I'm going to need a few tequilas and meditate before I'll be able to get my blood pressure down to where I'll be ready to surgically dissect the little shit, rather than just going Viking on him.


.

This is a discussion that I would be a fool to participate in.
I applaud the rings and who Russell is as a person.
I just don't think he has to automatically be categorized as the greatest or one of the greatest players ever because of his rings.
Maybe he is the greatest player ever, I have no idea. I never saw him play so I am not qualified to comment on it.

Well, if 11 championships are not a measure of greatness than how come Kobe and the other guys with only (?) five are constantly talking about getting number 6?

How is Jordan measured? SIX CHAMPIONSHIPS!!!! Why is he the greatest player ever? SIX CHAMPIONSHIPS. Why is Lebron James criticized? Not enough CHAMPIONSHIPS!!

In my book ELEVEN says a lot more than 5 or 6.

Did you know that there are about 8 Celtics who played during the Russell era (and a few years beyond his era) who have more championship rings than Jordan? Can you name some of them?

wide clyde wrote:Well, if 11 championships are not a measure of greatness than how come Kobe and the other guys with only (?) five are constantly talking about getting number 6?

How is Jordan measured?  SIX CHAMPIONSHIPS!!!! Why is he the greatest player ever?  SIX CHAMPIONSHIPS.  Why is Lebron James criticized?  Not enough CHAMPIONSHIPS!!

In my book ELEVEN says a lot more than 5 or 6.

Did you know that there are about 8 Celtics who played during the Russell era (and a few years beyond his era) who have more championship rings than Jordan?  Can you name some of them?

Robert Horry won 7 championships.
Derek Fisher won 5 championships.
Steve Kerr won 5 championships as a player.

Championships are generally needed to call a player a great player, but it's not a necessity.
Barkley, Malone and Stockton were all-time great players but did not never won a championship.

KELLY SCALETTA was a big time Chicago Bulls fan and his logic is terribly flawed.

dboss

’d like it noted that I did not initiate this topic.  Per my own policy I almost always post about the Russell Celtics in response to what someone else posts.

There's no going crazy in this corner.  The basic flaw in this moron's (well, maybe a little crazy) premise is that any valid commentary on the Russell Celtics could possibly be rooted in the individual rather than on the team (including their coach).  The individual, himself, never thought that way.  The coach never thought that way.  The players never thought that way.  The true fans never thought that way.  Only total buffoons (I’m running out of insults and cooling off a little now) think that way in demonstrating they don't know jack about the Russell Celtics.

I thought I was living in the dark ages until this model of terminal rectosis (I’m back on a roll with a different thesaurus) brought out the old saw about there being fewer teams in the league back when Russ played.  So this jackass can bring teams into the picture when he senses an argument that suits his purposes.

Well, dummy, the fact that there were only eight teams in the league—drawing from a huge talent base of four-year college players—meant that every single team had access to the equivalent of three or four high-quality draft picks out of the 30 that would comprise today's first round.  And they could make an unlimited number of picks in a given draft. Moreover, because the Celtics virtually always won, every other team in the league almost always had better odds at improving through the draft than the Celtics did.

I wonder if this jerk has ever really thought about what a feat it is to repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat every season.  What it was like to play fire house basketball but avoid mental vacations, injuries, capitulation to the rigors of travel, and other challenges of the times?  What pressures are created by fact that, every season, all teams in the league are out to get you and blockbuster trades such as Wilt's are specifically aimed at knocking you off? How difficult was it to muster with consistency the kind of motivational marathon that allowed absolutely no time off in seeking perfection?

Red Auerbach obviously deserves mountains of credit for facilitating so many of those championships.  But who was the force that stood out above all others in keeping the Tyranny alive?  Who assumed the coaching job for a couple more championships after Red left coaching?  Who is the one basketball player of all time whose demeanor and play best gave his teammates daily refreshers in the art of a complete insistence on winning the big ones?  Who is the only player who played in 20 winner-take-all games (college, Olympics and pro) and won all 20?  And what basketball player ever had nearly as much severe adversity to overcome while pulling off these miraculous feats?  (Like people breaking into his house and smearing feces on the walls.)

And, for accomplishing these impossible deeds, Russ owns a tangible reward comprised of 11 championship rings and a statue.  Actually, the reward is not a collection of championship rings.  It’s one ring added to another, added to another, added to another, added to another, added to another, added to another, added to another, added to another, added to another, added to another.  (Read that slowly and just imagine the pitfalls of having a target on your back every single season.  Each ring not just a hunk of jewelry but a symbol of sustained excellence and achievement over new challenges every single season.

The rings and his statue are actually pitifully little to show for the unremitting resolve and class he displayed for the approximately 4,700 days that spanned his career.  But encourage him to pat himself on the back, and names like Cousy, Jones and Havlicek immediately pop out of his mouth and direct you to a U-turn.  He has stated (I have the video) that he believes his Celtics might have won as many as three championships rather than 11 if not for Sam Jones.

To paraphrase Joyce Kilmer: “Posts are written by fools like us, but only God can make a Russ.

Sam

Good Lord, what an idiot.

Sam great post.

Why is it that these fools who continually try to make it seem like Russell just showed up and was handed a ring. There was so much more to Russ than his rings. He made every player he played with better than they ever could have dreamed of being. I have tried time after time to ignore the foolishness of this subject. Having watched Russell from the time I was a teenager, I will forever say no one played the game the way he did.

Those 11 rings are something you will never see again. He was the greatest, period

I've been waiting for you to weigh in, Rosalie.

The entire time I was writing my post, flashbacks were going through my mind. One really had to see him play to appreciate the timing with which he submitted his greatest moments. The more tense it came; the more that was at stake; the more a boulder in my stomach was making me sick with worry; the more he elevated his game. Not just some of the time. Not just most of the time. Always!

Certainly, other Celtics had more than their shares of superb moments; and ordinary role players became greater with the Celtics than they would have elsewhere. But it just seemed that the core of the greatness emanated from Russ and cast its spell on the entire team. There could be no more incredible intangible in the game of basketball.

Sam

Thanks, Cow.  I know you saw Russ when you were very young.  I wish you could have appreciated him on a day-in, day-out basis throughout his career.  Verbal descriptions and video can give some idea of great plays he made.  But nothing except repeatedly watching him in action could ever describe the consistency of his standard of his unmatchable influence on the games an on his teammates.

Yet, when he'd walk out on the court from a timeout preceding a make-or-break play, it might have been easy to mistake him for an old man sauntering down a dusty road.  He was sort of stoop-shouldered; he had that sort of Jesus beard; and only his long legs prevented his gait from resembling a shuffle.  His blank stare could have been interpreted as a sign of indifference by those who weren't aware of how intensely he was predictably stoking his inner conflagration.  And then you'd look around, and his four teammates were as stoic as he, offering no hint of the terror they were almost sure to inflict.

Sam

Sam, this is what one NBA GM said about  Bill Russell:

"...when the Lakers would play the Celtics in championship games and the Laker crowd would be noisy and they would introduce the players before the game and they would come out, one by one, and slap hands, and then they would introduce Russell and he would come out, and stand apart, absolutely motionless, his face scornful, and the crowd noise would just stop.  He didn't just intimidate players, he demoralized the home crowd."

Portland GM Stu Inman from Davied Halberstam's "Breaks of the Game."

I have a feeling that some of this was intentional on Russell's part.  In his autobiography, "Second Wind," Russell said that on the court he would take on airs that would have gotten him laughed out of the Celtic locker room.

Russell was the master of the psychological game. Remember Muhammad Ali in his prime? Between rounds he would never sit down but stand in the corner glaring at his opponent who, of course, was sitting on his stool.

The writer of this story did write about the odds of winning a championship back in the Russell days compare to today.
Here's where he could have gone into more detail.
I looked up the 1957-58 and 1958-59 seasons.
6 out of the 8 teams in the league made the playoffs.
Boston received a first round bye in both of those seasons, so they didn't have to play in the best 2 out of 3 first round series. Boston had to win 4 games in the Eastern Divisional Finals and then 4 games in the NBA Finals to win the championship. Yes, the rules were the same for all 8 teams back then, so the Lakers fans can't bellyache about the lack of wins needed to win a championship back then.
Having to win 16 games now compared to 8 back then, seems to be significantly harder.
I do agree that no team will be able to put together a run near like those Celtics teams due to free agency and salary cap purposes.
Boston had a great run that has not been matched.
But again, it's hard to compare basketball back then to basketball now.
The Yankees used to dominate a small league with no free agency. That will never happen again either.

I agree that it is easier to win A title if you played fewer series--as opposed to a winner take all single game.

Having said that though in the 13 years that Russell roamed the court only two teams won titles that weren't called the  Boston Celtics.

If it was so much easier to win titles why didn't more teams win them during the Russell era?

sam wrote:Thanks, Cow.  I know you saw Russ when you were very young.  I wish you could have appreciated him on a day-in, day-out basis throughout his career.  Verbal descriptions and video can give some idea of great plays he made.  But nothing except repeatedly watching him in action could ever describe the consistency of his standard of his unmatchable influence on the games an on his teammates.

Yet, when he'd walk out on the court from a timeout preceding a make-or-break play, it might have been easy to mistake him for an old man sauntering down a dusty road.  He was sort of stoop-shouldered; he had that sort of Jesus beard; and only his long legs prevented his gait from resembling a shuffle.  His blank stare could have been interpreted as a sign of indifference by those who weren't aware of how intensely he was predictably stoking his inner conflagration.  And then you'd look around, and his four teammates were as stoic as he, offering no hint of the terror they were almost sure to inflict.

Sam

Sam a book that is great is Bill Simmons Big Book on Basketball, he also didn't see Russell live, but he goes by stats, game film, other books at the time of the tyranny, and he lists all of them and his fathers recollections, its really really well written with alot of humor and a guy he rips is Wilt Chamberlain, especially calling out Wilts ability in the clutch. This is the kind of book, once you pick it up, its hard to put down.

Sloopjohnb wrote:I agree that it is easier to win A title if you played fewer series--as opposed to a winner take all single game.

Having said that though in the 13 years that Russell roamed the court only two teams won titles that weren't called the  Boston Celtics.

If it was so much easier to win titles why didn't more teams win them during the Russell era?

I agree the Lakers and other teams had the same exact odds at winning the championship back then, but Boston dominated.
The comparison is winning championships back then compared to winning championships in the modern era.

Sloopjohnb wrote:I agree that it is easier to win A title if you played fewer series--as opposed to a winner take all single game.

Having said that though in the 13 years that Russell roamed the court only two teams won titles that weren't called the  Boston Celtics.

If it was so much easier to win titles why didn't more teams win them during the Russell era?

because they had the greatest rim protector/defensive anchor in the game who also ripped down rebounds like he owned them.

Small ball era is upon us, but I still say the no 1 job of a center is to anchor a defense and win the wars in the paint, if you don't have that to a certain level you can't win. Shooting comes and goes, you have hot nights and cold stretches, but defense and rim protection remain constant....one of the secrets why the Spurs have been so great for so long with Tim Duncan.

I watched Wilt wave off his coach and tell him he did not want to go back into a playoff game because he was getting beat. It comes from the heart. Wilt was a great, great player, scored points galore, and never ever matched Russell with his heart. Maybe Bill Simmons never saw Russ play, but, he obviously appreciated his talent and heart. I am forever grateful that I was there to watch him win so many titles in person. I will have to buy that book, I like Simmons, even when he gets a little crazy!

Rosalie

Its really really great Rosalie, he covers everything in such detail.

For a guy that never saw Russell play he really covered his game and impact in depth, he covers the greatest players, the greatest teams and breaks down the 2 eras, the modern and old time. Besides Russell, another player Simmons really loved was Dave Cowens, he describes how Cowens loved doing the dirty work and would grunt while leaping for rebounds and the whole Garden could hear it.

Hi,
I just followed the link that Bobh provided. Didn't read the article but went directly to readers' comments. This guy, Kelly, does respond to some of the comments. To add to some epithets used in this thread, e.g. idiot, moron, buffoon, I'd say certifiable.
When does the season start, again?

AK

Lincoln's status as America's greatest president is grossly over-rated by today's standards. These days, there are far more states, more people in the country, so preserving the union would be much more challenging than in 1860. And with more people, there is more competition among candidates, making it unlikely Lincoln could ever prevail in an election. In fact, if you compare Lincoln's vote total of less than 2 million to the 58 million that Romney received, it's clear that he was 1/29th as popular as a modern losing candidate, let alone the winner, Obama, who garnered 61 million. Hawk

hawksnestbeach wrote:Lincoln's status as America's greatest president is grossly over-rated by today's standards. These days, there are far more states, more people in the country, so preserving the union would be much more challenging than in 1860. And with more people, there is more competition among candidates, making it unlikely Lincoln could ever prevail in an election. In fact, if you compare Lincoln's vote total of less than 2 million to the 58 million that Romney received, it's clear that he was 1/29th as popular as a modern losing candidate, let alone the winner, Obama, who garnered 61 million. Hawk

Hawk,

Beautiful, absolutely beautiful.


bob


.

Thanks, Bob!

hawksnestbeach wrote:Lincoln's status as America's greatest president is grossly over-rated by today's standards. These days, there are far more states, more people in the country, so preserving the union would be much more challenging than in 1860. And with more people, there is more competition among candidates, making it unlikely Lincoln could ever prevail in an election. In fact, if you compare Lincoln's vote total of less than 2 million to the 58 million that Romney received, it's clear that he was 1/29th as popular as a modern losing candidate, let alone the winner, Obama, who garnered 61 million. Hawk

An inspired bit there. Thanks, Hawk!