Ranking Boston Sports Legends

[Yehoodi]

Are you related to apple strudel, by any chance?

I see you like to throw insults instead of engaging in an intelligent conversation. I'll take your insult as a replacement for you not having anything to add to this discusion . . . thanks for your input sparky . . .

 

[mgteich]

I agree with a previous poster. There are three great Boston sports legends.

Red Auerbach
Bill Russell
Bobby Orr

The only baseball player close to this list for me would be Babe Ruth (a Yankee) and Cy Young. The effect on the game and accomplishments of Ted Williams or Yaz don't come close, for me.

BTW, marathoner Johnny Kelly, veteran of 62 Boston marathons, deserve honorable mention as a Boston sports LEGEND.

 

[condon84]

This "analysis" totally misses the point. Russell was the dominant player on the Celtics during his playing days winning 5 League MVPs. He and Wilt Chamberlain vied to be the dominant player in the NBA with Red Auberach famously paying Bill Russell $1 more in salary in Chamberlain because he viewed Russell as the better player.

Going back to Henri Richard, are you claiming that he was the best player on the Canadians and arguably the best player in the NHL? No, you refute that contention yourself in your comments. Your analogy is worse than worthless; it is misleading.

Your arguments about statistics indicate that you never saw Russell play and really understand who Bill Russell was. Bill Russell was (and is) all about team. Bill Belichick would have loved him as much as Tom Brady. Bill Russell chose to score less so that the team would win more. And he didn't have to go through years of a learning curve like Michael Jordan to do it! (Jordan's highest two scoring years and three out of the top four were years that the Bulls did not win a title.)

Russell came in as the consumate team player and stayed the consumate team player throughout his career. This is reflected in his rings and - by those with an insightful understanding of these things - in his statistics. Yes, Wilt Chamberlain consistently put up more points in his matchups with Russell. But the Celtics, led by Bill Russell, consistently won - except when he was injured. Yes, that's right, the year that Bill Russell was injured and missed the playoffs was the year that the Celtics didn't win a title.

There's a lot more I could say, but I'll close with this story I heard Bill Russell share during an interview. The Celtics were a fast break team and Russell was one of the those that hustled down the court on the fast break. Bill Russell shared that they got a lot of 3-2 matchups with him on one side, Tommy Heinsohn on the other and Bob Cousy in the middle. Bill shared that Bob Cousy would always pass the ball to Heinsohn, never to him, and that it was so hard to keep running full out on fast breaks knowing that he wasn't going to be passed the ball. But he did because that's what the team needed him to do.

It wasn't just fast breaks. Bill Russell was a great offensive player that only displayed part of his skills on the basketball floor because that's what the team needed him to do. He was underappreciated then by people who love the gaudy stats (that Chamberlain would put up), but he has always been appreciated by those of us who realize that it is harder to have the talent and, at times, minimize your use of it for the greater good than it is to blow everyone away with your talent while the team struggles to capture the ring.

Good post.

 

[Yehoodi]

Your argument against Russell has been around 3 themes:

1) Russell was a defensive specialist (who was presumably not a major offensive force)
2) Russell's titles compare with Henri Richard's titles and since Henri Richard wasn't one of the greatest hockey players of all time that Russell is not one of the greatest basketball players of all time
3) Russell was fortunate to always have lots of HOF players around him which allowed him to be so successful

Your first point is simply incorrect which you would realize if you saw Russell play more.

Your second point has been refuted and really isn't worth discussing much more since I'm not seeing a whole lot of support out there for your theory.

Your third point is worth discussing to some extent, I believe. You certainly have to consider that Russell was the beneficiary of a lot of great talent around him. Which brings us to the question I asked so that when we have the answer, we can focus more on Bill Russell - the incredible player. The 5-time MVP. The leader of his team on every level (high school, college, Olympics, NBA). The best defensive player of his age. Arguably the best "team" player of all time in any sport since he opened the door to discussions like this by sharing the ball on offense so that his teammates could shine and, more importantly, so that his team could and did win. A true champion. Something not found in statistics but which is freely acknowledged by those who played with him, played against him, coached him, covered him and watched him. I only hope that this discussion will give many here a glimpse into the true champion that Bill Russell is.

I am here are work so do not have a lot of time to respond, but will add a quick respone now and try to add more later today or tomorrow.

First, we are all Cs fans and without question placed Russell in extremely high regard as one of the greatest legend of all sports all time. We are all proud to have Russell represent a Boston sports team, etc.

First, I dont have anything "against" Russell, in fact if I wanted to I can easily make an argument on his behalf. So not to sound like Bob Ryan but this is how I would argue for Bill Russell . . .

1) 11 Titles in 13 years
2) In all or nothing games he is Whatever and Zero :singing:
3) One Gold Medal and NCAA tiltles
4) One of the first "Team" Players
5) The Greatest Defensive Center of All time, without question
6) A player that brought changes to his sport
7) In all or nothing games is whatever and Zero
8) 11 titles in 13 years
9) End of Discussion

See I can make the argument. but once I take off my celtic green glasses and step back and realizes that some of his accomplishments are the result of his teammates, I have to then begin to look to see if one teammates helps out the cause. IMO Russell's biggest claim to fame is the 11 wins, but if those wins are mitigated, then they are not as impressive as they may seem . . .

I don't have time to double check this, and please feel free to do so, but in my recollection of great nba teams there are only a few teams in history that field 4 HOF on the same teams and the teams are the following"

Bill Russell entire C team 1956-1969 (13 teams)

Wilt Chamberlian's 1972 Lakers (1 team)

Bird's 81-83 (tiny archbald), 86 and 87 Cs (Walton was injured in 1987) (5 teams)

Magics' 83-85 (3 teams, although McADoo was at the end of his career)

so basically you have a handful of teams in NBA histroy that fielded 4 HOFs (and I CANT stress enough that you only play 7-8 players per game, so these teams on average field atleast 50% HOF all game long, all day and all night). Is it no surprise that of those teams at least two are in the arguement for best all time '72 Lakers and '86 Cs, and I would add a third bieng one of Russells' teams, you guys pickem, I would go with one of the mid 60s version . . . What is the common denominator, 4 HOFs, see the picture and my point. Wilt Chamberlian never had more that 1 or 2 HOF teammates, when he finally got a third he won a title (some familar)and is on a team that some say is the best all time . . . Magic and bird won titles also, but also cancel each other out to a degree as they faced each other. . .

So that is my point, you can't just look at ones titles and don't go beyond that, its unfair to other great althetes, all you can do is to extrapolate to other althetes, and when you see other great althete accomplish the same goals as Russell did with the same talent level at the teammate level, then it does water down Bill accomplishments . . .

It kind of like the Tom Brady versus Manning argument, specificially with respect to the offensive talent of each. Most colts fans will argue PM is a better offensive QB that TB. Pats fans have always said that PM has had the weapons (IE HOF teammates like M. Harrsion) that make it easier for him to put up numbers and "if TB ever got his toys like PM he'll do well" - well in '07 TB got this toys and broke a lot of offensive records. Well Wilt C. is like TB never had a 3 HOF supporting cast, but when he got that 3rd member in '72 he went all world like TB in '07. Likewise, Bill R. is like PM always had a strong supporting case and thus could post great teams records

So my point is we need to look to the supporting cast of each players before we crown him the best. The Henri Richard point was a colorful illustration of that point, as he, along side Russell, is the greatest champion in North American team sports, but when one looks to Henri Richard, he is the Rocket's little brother . . . people will look to his 11 titles and are more apt to say, supporting cast, timing etc . . . I for one am not so blind in Celtic green to look to the supporting cast of Russell and not at a minimum bring his supporting cast into the equation, No I would not put him as low on the totem poll as Henri Richard, but I do see the supporting cast as a mitigating factor.

Quickly regardin you question, I essentially answered it in my point above, but yes when one has a strong supporting cast, its does mitigate his team accomplished of 11 titles in my eyes. When i look to see how other did with the same talent and accomplished the same thing, titles, then I can take into consideration that his titles has as much to do about him as it does with his team, also IMO he contributed more to the Cs wins than Richard did to the Canadiens . .

okay i got to go for now . . this ended up longer than i anticipated :singing:

 

[patsfan13]

:

Honest question,

Did you ever watch Bill Russell play for an entire game?

The C had a very good team, don't mean to knock anyone, however he was the reason they C's had so many HOF players. THe players themselves will attest to that Russell was head and shoulders aboue anyone he ever played with.

Russell is the best player in the history of TEAM Sports, he could have led the league in scoring if he had chosen to.

Guys who didn't see him play don't appreciate how great he was. I saw the man play he is the best.

 

[TruthSeeker]

[long post reiterating that Bill Russell had lots of HOF teammates]

Yes, we get it. We all agree that he had HOF teammates. We even agree that that individuals don't win team championships, teams win team championships.

Now let's talk about Bill Russell the player and see where he ranks on the list of NBA players and Boston sports legends. That's what everyone else seems to be discussing at this point...

 

[TruthSeeker]

Quickly regarding your question, I essentially answered it in my point above, but yes when one has a strong supporting cast, its does mitigate his team accomplished of 11 titles in my eyes.

By the way, the question I asked is and was:

Is it possible to be the greatest player of your time and possibly the greatest player ever if you have 4 HOF teammates?

I'm not sure you really did answer the question. If I was to take a stab at your answer, it sounds like you're saying no - but I could be wrong. Feel free to correct me if I am.

 

[Yehoodi]

Honest question,

Did you ever watch Bill Russell play for an entire game?

The C had a very good team, don't mean to knock anyone, however he was the reason they C's had so many HOF players. THe players themselves will attest to that Russell was head and shoulders aboue anyone he ever played with.

Russell is the best player in the history of TEAM Sports, he could have led the league in scoring if he had chosen to.

Guys who didn't see him play don't appreciate how great he was. I saw the man play he is the best.

No, never had the pleasure to see the man play. Nor did I ever have the chance to see Ted Willaims, Babe Didrikson, or Jim Thorpe, that does not mean I can not make a comment on their repective place in history.

Now a question for you . . .

Have you ever seen Jeau Beliveau, Yvan Cournoyar or Henri Richard play?

And a second question have you ever seen live any team sports player who played before 1950. If you have not, then what basis do you have to comment on players who played before 1950 an how they may or may not compare to the players mention in this thread. You see we are at an impass

 

[patsfan13]

No, never had the pleasure to see the man play. Nor did I ever have the chance to see Ted Willaims, Babe Didrikson, or Jim Thorpe, that does not mean I can not make a comment on their repective place in history.

Now a question for you . . .

Have you ever seen Jeau Beliveau, Yvan Cournoyar or Henri Richard play?

Yes saw all 3 play in the Garden, Larry Robinson also.

[/quote]
And a second question have you ever seen live any team sports player who played before 1950. If you have not, then what basis do you have to comment on players who played before 1950 an how they may or may not compare to the players mention in this thread. You see we are at an impass [/QUOTE]

Saw Ted Williams play.

I can comment on Russell vs Bird, Williams, Orr and Brady since I have seen all live and on TV

 

[Yehoodi]

By the way, the question I asked is and was:

Is it possible to be the greatest player of your time and possibly the greatest player ever if you have 4 HOF teammates?

I'm not sure you really did answer the question. If I was to take a stab at your answer, it sounds like you're saying no - but I could be wrong. Feel free to correct me if I am.

It obivously depends on the player. Yes the "Henri Richard" factor can be big and needs to be addressed and not simply ignored. But it still comes down to the players, the players around him, the teams accomplishments, etc . . . what the team did before he was there, after he was there, who play with him, did they all leave when he did, was there a mass exiodas (ala Scotty Bohmen, Ken Dryden, Yvon Cournayar, Jacques Larmiare, etc. in the 1979 Canadiens) BTW I am not dissing Henri Richard, I think he was one of the all time greats, I just add him here to bring color to my points as some here my not view him as one of the all time greats and as such can get a better understanding of my points . . .

So the answer it depends and needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. If Wilt Chamberlian had his 72 lakers teammates with him all the time and ran the table like Russell then I would put him at the top or at least in the final running of the GOAT, even though he had his 4 HOF team. I say this mainly due to the fact that Wilt out performed his closest rival Russell in points, rebounds and assists. Going the other way, I can't say the same for Russell, as in his generation he was not the best center of the game, Wilt was, Wilt outperformed Russell on the catagory mentioned. So Russell is a case were a players with HOF supported can't be deemed the GOAT, IMO

So to answer you question it depends. In Russell case no, simply becuase he was the no. 2 guy of his generation.

You must remember, Russell came to a celtic team that had three standing HOFs, coached by a HOF coach, had made it to the playoffs for six straights seasons, and drafted in the same year furture HOF Tommy Heinshon who beat out Russell for the Rookie of the year and himself lead the Cs to 8 Championships in 9 years. . . The Cs were flirting with winning a championship and when you add the final two pieces to the puzzle, Hienshon and Russell who to say which piece should gets the credit, the first piece, second or last piece??

 

[Yehoodi]

Yes, we get it. We all agree that he had HOF teammates. We even agree that that individuals don't win team championships, teams win team championships.

Now let's talk about Bill Russell the player and see where he ranks on the list of NBA players and Boston sports legends. That's what everyone else seems to be discussing at this point...

My List


1) Ted Williams

- greatest hitter of all time, lost 5 years of his prime to two wars, first to study hitting in a technical matter, two triple crowns, last man to hit over 400

2) Bobby Orr

- 8 norris trophies, won the scoring title as a defense, forever change the defensive position in hockey, two stanley cups, many more trophies, took a team that was in the cellarof the league and brought it to the promise land, team hasn't won a championship since he left. . .and May 10, 1970 . . . ". . . Keon try to clear it but its not out. . . [Bobby Orr blocking the clearing attempt] . . . Orr behind the net to Sanderson to Orr!!! . . .Bobby Orr scores!! and the Boston Bruins win the Stanley Cup . . . . . [ ]. . as Orr their 22 year old sensation scores . . . “
Many, i said MANY a skating rink was biuld in Bobby Orr era. . .


3) Bill Russell

- 11 titles in 13 years, played and won against the greatest center of all time and thus had that different task of defending him, played as as team player, is whatever and zero it winner take all games . . .

4) Pickem Brady or Bird

we all know their stats, 3 rings in 7-8 years . . . among the best of their generation. I might give the knod to Brady as he had less supporting case than Bird, and I think IS the best of his generation. Not to mention 16-0, 4 SBs appearances, 4th qtr comebacks, and second fastest to 100 wins . . .

btw, here is a really nice tribute to Bobby Orr, from the Legends of Hockey series . . .

YouTube - Bobby Orr Highlight Video

 

[Yehoodi]

Yes saw all 3 play in the Garden, Larry Robinson also.

And a second question have you ever seen live any team sports player who played before 1950. If you have not, then what basis do you have to comment on players who played before 1950 an how they may or may not compare to the players mention in this thread. You see we are at an impass [/QUOTE]

Saw Ted Williams play.

I can comment on Russell vs Bird, Williams, Orr and Brady since I have seen all live and on TV [/QUOTE]

Patsfan13, I hear were you are coming from and it does indeed help to have seen some players play, but it not dispositive on ones ability to analzye the sitaution. Hey I have seen Brady play nearly ever snap, that doesn't mean that I do or don't know where his place is in history. Personally seeing him play, I will put him number one of all time if he gets either two more SBs OR a 19-0 season. But that doesn't mean that I am correct if I were to say "its not the 01-04 defense" that won the SB it was Brady. What if it am "wrong" the fact that I seen him play doesn't make me correct. that is all.

Man did you seen Willaims in his prime or later years . . .

I started watching sports in the early 70s

 

[TruthSeeker]

Is it possible to be the greatest player of your time and possibly the greatest player ever if you have 4 HOF teammates?

It obviously depends on the player...

It is just as obvious to me that it does not depend on the player for it to be possible to be the greatest player of your time and still have 4 HOF teammates. My answer is an unreserved "yes".

We can agree to disagree.

 

[Steamer86]

Did you want to base your theory on statistics or are you doing a Skip Bayless impression.
In the Patriots first Superbowl win, the major reason for winning that Superbowl was that the Patriots defense stopped one of the all-time explosive offenses. That Ty Law was very close to winning the MVP for that game. Yes, Brady got the team in position for the game winner (not taking anything away from him). St. Louis team was known for its offense not defense and the key to that game was defense.
In regards to free agency, do you think Red would have used free agency to his advantage? He got the best players from drafting and a number of those players where not picked in the first round. Red was a genius when it came to acquiring players. How many players do you think would have liked to come play for Boston? You might say, had there been free agency during that era, that the Celtics might have lost some players, but they sure would have acquired some (the ones Red coveted). In addition, tho you did not mention salary cap, I'll throw it out there. There is still not a hard cap in the NBA like there is in football. What's more, who do you think would be at an advantage if there was a salary cap?
The competition of the top teams were just as competitive as today. As matter of fact, a number of those teams would trounce this years' champion.
That 3% statistical chance is very flawed, this is not a draft lottery.

So you don't think it is easier to win a championship in an 8 team league than in a 30 team league?

 

[RayClay]

So you don't think it is easier to win a championship in an 8 team league than in a 30 team league?

Considering the talent is at least twice as concentrated?...

I don't think it matters much, to tell you the truth.

 

[Yehoodi]

It is just as obvious to me that it does not depend on the player for it to be possible to be the greatest player of your time and still have 4 HOF teammates. My answer is an unreserved "yes".

We can agree to disagree.

Certainly we can agree to disagree. I am not sure if you have a typo (or its just me and i am not reading your post correct), but it looks like you are agreeing with me, regardless I thinks its always great to have an insightful debate and if necessarily agree to disagree . . excellent

Oh btw was thinking about the Orr link that I gave, and figure I put one up on Richard. That legends of Hockey was a great program

btw, the first minute or so in the intro to the show . . . enjoy if you wish to watch it . . .

YouTube - Hockey Hall of Fame: Joseph Henri Richard, the pocket rocket

 

[scout]

By the way, the question I asked is and was:

Is it possible to be the greatest player of your time and possibly the greatest player ever if you have 4 HOF teammates?

I'm not sure you really did answer the question. If I was to take a stab at your answer, it sounds like you're saying no - but I could be wrong. Feel free to correct me if I am.

Just finished "Red and Me".
One thing that shouts out throughout the book, and by any knowledgable basketball fan, was the Russell made the players around him better. Russell could have scored a lot more points, but that wasn't what was the most important factor. He not only studied his opponents but also his teamates, for tendencies and weaknesses.
Some critics point to his having all these HOF'ers on his team. Case in point, Bill Sharman.
When Sharman came to the Celtics he was considered a tweener. Had Red not been his coach he may have bounced from team to team and without a doubt would not have acheived his level of success without Russell.

 

[tdw777]

If you love Boston sports, you have to love this thread. Seems to be a consensus that the greatest players are Ted Williams, Bobby Orr, and Bill Russell. I have been on theis earth for 57 years and have seen Bill Russell and Bobby Orr..I have also seen Larry Bird, and Tom Brady and still to this day consider Bill Russell to be the greatest basetball player and Bobby Orr to be the greatest hockey player. As special as Tom Brady is and Larry Bird was, Bill Russell and Bobby Orr, IMHO, are nos 1 and 2 in Boston sports.