Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you serious? What have I been saying the past 4 days?! Dude, this conversation is done.
All you've mentioned, is how it's unfair for Jordan, due to a pace argument you made, in which you provide no evidence for, and the fact that Russell played w/ more HOF's with less teams (which is at the least debatable as far as saying Russell had it easier in this regard) And yet, you haven't mentioned how it isn't fair for Russell
All you've mentioned, is how it's unfair for Jordan, due to a pace argument you made, in which you provide no evidence for, and the fact that Russell played w/ more HOF's with less teams (which is at the least debatable as far as saying Russell had it easier in this regard) And yet, you haven't mentioned how it isn't fair for Russell
I actually did research as to determine whether Russell's Celtics had an easier road to their titles in the playoffs than MJ's Bulls based upon the fact that there were fewer teams and a shorter post season and this is what I unconvered. Again, this is looking squarely at the championship seasons.
# of Championships
Russell's Celtics-11
Jordan's Bulls-6
Total Series Played
Russell's Celtics-25
Jordan's Bulls-24
Avg. series played per title
Russell's Celtics-2.3
Jordan's Bulls-4
Avg. games played per title
Russell's Celtics-13.4
Jordan's Bulls-19.3
If we were to stop right here it would appear that the Bulls definitely had a tougher road to the championship each year. They played nearly the same amount of series en route to 6 titles as the Celtics played en route to 11 titles. They also averaged more series and games played per title run. At this point the 6 titles do look to be at least as impressive as 11. But let’s dig deeper. Let’s see actually how challenging the series were.
In the 25 series that they played on their way to 11 titles, Russell’s Celtics were pushed to a game seven 10 times. They were also pushed to a game five in a best of five series once. This means that the Celtics were pushed to the brink of elimination in 44% of their playoff series. 5 of those game sevens were decided by 2 points or 1 point.
I want to put this in perspective. The Celtics were a total of 10-12 points away from losing 5 of their titles. (Just FYI, another game 7 was decided by 5 points, another by 4 points, and another by 3 points.) So we have a dynastic team that is on the verge of being eliminated in almost half of its series. That level of competition and struggle can't be ignored or minimized.
In the 24 series that they played on their way to 6 titles, Jordan’s Bulls were pushed to a game seven (or elimination game) a grand total of 2 times. This means that the Bulls were pushed to the brink of elimination in only 8.3% of their series. One of those game sevens was a 110-81 or 29 pt. blowout. The other game seven was at least more competitive. It was an 88-83 win. Not much suspense here.
Let’s look at the other end of the spectrum. In those same 25 series Russell’s Celtics swept their opponents only twice. That is 8% of their series. On the other hand, Jordan’s Bulls swept their opponents 9 times, including every single first round. 37.5% of their series were against teams that were not competitive enough to even win one game. Adding those extra rounds and games sure doesn’t seem to add to the difficulty of the road to a title especially when those teams aren’t putting up that much resistance.
Next, as mentioned earlier, Russell’s Celtics averaged only 13.4 games per title run, while Jordan’s Bulls averaged 19.3 games per title run. The Celtics’ competition caused them to average 4.45 losses per title run. The Bull’s competition caused them to average 4.33 losses per title run. So despite playing nearly 6 games fewer, Russell’s Celtics still loss, on average, slightly more games showing their competition was at least as, if not, more challenging than the Bulls. They were not just breezing their way to titles at all. The fewest number of games the Celtics lost in any championship post season was 2. The fewest number of losses the Bulls had in any championship postseason was 2 despite playing more games. The most losses the Celtics had in any post season that they won the title were 7. The most losses the Bulls had in any post season that they won the title were 7 again, despite playing more games.
Russell’s Celtics won 5 of their 25 series on the road as underdogs in their title years. Jordan’s Bulls won 3 of their 24 series on the road as underdogs in their title years.
So let’s summarize this. Yes Russell’s Celtics played in a league with significantly fewer teams and a shorter post season than Jordan’s Bulls. But while the Bulls were so much better than their competition that they swept 37.5% of their opponents in what amounted to meaningless, noncompetitive series, the Celtics were being forced to an elimination game in 44% of their series. The Bulls did play more game sixes (7 to 5 in favor of the Bulls). Adding the game sixes to the equation tells us that 37.5% of the Bulls’ series en route to their titles were competitive enough to go at least 6 games. But again that pales in comparison to the competitive and challenging nature of the Celtics' playoff runs. 60% of all of the Celtics’ series went at least 6 games, and this doesn’t even include a 5 game best of five series.
In conclusion, I’m sorry. With these numbers no one can convince me that it was easier to win titles in Russell’s era than in the modern era. Try telling a team that is about 8 or 9 combined plays from losing 5 of their titles that their titles mean less than a team that was barely pushed to an elimination during their title runs. Those titles were hard earned. Their road to titles were not any easier than the Bulls, and the Bulls' titles are not worth any more IMO. Contrary to popularly regurgitated rhetoric, adding more teams does not make the path to a championship more difficult if you are so superior to those additional teams that they are getting swept. That's just padding the win column. I can't view playing 8 games against this season's Cavs as being more difficult than playing 5 games against this season's Heat just because it's more games. It's not the quantity of the competition. It’s the quality of the competition that makes the road difficult. 6 is neither greater than nor equal to 11.
Feel better getting that out of your system? All what you said tells me is that once Jordan had a team by the threat, he applied the pressure harder and let few teams get within striking distance. That Bulls team was masterfully coached, prepped, with Jordan never letting them get complacent.
You admit that Jordan's Bulls played more games, traveled more, but fail to arrive at the conclusion that this means more wear and tear on the body( or conveniently ignored). We can both sit here and spin to color the argument. It's not a matter of whether Russell's titles are more or less impressive. It's that they were won under different times, making comparisons not an apples to apples situation, and making rankings subjective.
You can't even compare Magic and Jordan's titles, even though they were separated by only a decade. Why? Magic joined a team with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, later joined by James Worthy and Byron Scott, along with Michael Cooper, Wilkes, Nixon, etc etc. It took Jordan 7 years to have a team good enough to win a title. Pippen and Grant didn't join until 1987, and it took them 3 years to develop into solid complimentary pieces. Russell from the outset of his career played with anywhere from 4-8 HOF caliber teammates. He was always in position to compete for titles; Jordan wasn't. And once he got going, you know what happened. A 3peat, followed by a year retirement, followed by a half season where he had a weak frontline and lost to the Magic, followed by a second 3peat with completely different teammates aside from Pippen and Jackson as coach. All of this greats' paths to titles were different, making the entire argument of ring count simplistic and pointless. Hey, Kobe Bryant has 5 titles, Tim Duncan has 4. Sooooooo....... Kobe> Duncan? Or do we look at the fact that Kobe benefited from playing with the most dominant player from 1999-2004, accounting for 3 of his 5 titles( and yes I understand that Kobe played major roles on that team, but team's defensive schemes were geared to stopping Shaq, not Kobe), while Duncan anchored all 4 of his rings offensively and defensively? Ring count, as the primary basis for the 'who's better' argument is silly because it's not objective, something that you either fail to comprehend or just willfully ignore.
During all that research, did you also come across how teams played more possessions 50 years ago, meaning statistics would be bloated compared to today's era? In addition to Wilt's 50 point season, Oscar's triple double year, did you know that Elgin Baylor averaged 19.8 rebounds, this was all the same year. Dennis Rodman's highest rebound average was 18.7. Well 19.8> 18.7 sooooooooooo.....I guess Baylor> Rodman as a rebounder? I mean this is following the logic you've shown throughout this discussion.
A great effort, though, on your end to dig up that info. And you're not closer to convincing me that Russell, or anyone, deserves the title of GOAT. Would you like to try again?
And finally Mr. Black, while I respect your opinion and you're more than entitled to it, you're obviously aching to go on and on and on and on with this issue, so I will leave you with the following which sums up the point we're at:
You don't quite seem to get that I'm fundamentally on opposite sides of this argument, so the time you're spending here is merely convincing yourself, because it's not happening on this end.
And finally Mr. Black, while I respect your opinion and you're more than entitled to it, you're obviously aching to go on and on and on and on with this issue, so I will leave you with the following which sums up the point we're at:
You don't quite seem to get that I'm fundamentally on opposite sides of this argument, so the time you're spending here is merely convincing yourself, because it's not happening on this end.
Who says I was trying to convince you? I put this up here for everyone
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
