The Instigator
DTuz
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
Gibby97
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Bill Russell is the most overrated "great" in Basketball

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
DTuz
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2015 Category: Sports
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 536 times Debate No: 78669
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

DTuz

Pro

During the time that Bill Russell played, rebounding and scoring stats were heavily inflated versus how they are right now.
This guy consistently shot under 45% as a center, dipping under 40% at some points. Great defender, good rebounder, (His best rebounding season equates to about 16.2 boards a game today) bad offensive game.
Throw him in today's game and this guy looks like he'd be DeAndre Jordan but better at rebounding and defense.
Gibby97

Con

First before we look at Russell's 11 rings, as many as Kobe and Jordan combined, Bill Russell's career numbers are worthy of an all-time great. Currently Russell is 2nd all-time in rebounds with 21,620 trailing only his rival Wilt Chamberlain, who has slightly 2,300 more than Russell. Russell I would assume would be in the Top 5 all-time in blocks, however, blocks were not first recorded until 1973-74 , five years after Russell retired. Also I mentioned the eleven rings, a career achievement that will never be matched in any professional sport. I find it incredible that he would not be considered an all-time great, not just in basketball, but all Four American Professional Sports.

http://espn.go.com...
http://www.basketball-reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
DTuz

Pro

When determining how good a players is, rings are a poor argument. And like I said, rebounding was inflated. Teams in the 60's were averaging 70 rebounds a game (average is closer to 50 today). There were so many poor possessions, it was a faster paced game so there were so many shots which made rebounding so much easier. Not to mention that the people he were getting rebounds over weren't as big, strong, and athletic as guys like Dwight Howard, Deandre Jordan, Ben Wallace, and Andre Drummond.

The number wouldn't be as high if he played in a later era because there is absolutely no way that he would be able to averaged 20-25 rebounds for multiple seasons. His offensive game was pretty weak as he, as a center averaged about 45%, a percentage that would be beyond medicre today for someone who doesn't shoot jumpshots. If you inserted him into todays game, he would be similar on the offensive end to DeAndre Jordan and mostly score on putbacks and lobs. He was a very good playmaker, rebounder but defense is the only aspect of his game that I would label as "great".

http://www.basketball-reference.com...
http://www.basketball-reference.com...
Gibby97

Con

When you mention the modern day NBA, you mentioned big men such as Dwight Howard, DeAndre Jordan, Ben Wallace, and Andre Drummond. I can grant you the evolution of the game and as a result the players are in much better condition and they are stronger and more leaner. However some of these men, especially Wallace and Drummond, struggle (or struggled in Wallace's case) to be NBA All-Stars, never mind being considered the most dominating players in the game today. Even a case could be made that Dwight Howard might not be the best center in the game today, that title should go to Anthony Davis of New Orleans. When you compare their numbers head to head Russell is the strongest of the four. In per game averages Russell is 2nd in PPG, and 1st in APG and Total Rebounds Per Game. Also on that list, Russell has the 2nd highest career free throw percentage, a mark most highly criticize about the modern bigs of the NBA. Russell's Eleven Rings also out last the three of them combined, Ben Wallace is the only member of that group with a Championship. Russell is purely one of the best to play the game from an iconic standpoint and the numbers make him great.

http://www.basketball-reference.com...=
http://www.basketball-reference.com...
Debate Round No. 2
DTuz

Pro

I named the Ben Wallaces and DeAndre Jordan type players because those are the guys who most similar to Bill Russell's game. If anything, the fact that they struggled to become all-stars shows how someone with that play style would do in today's game. They are all great rebounders and defenders with very limited offensive games in which they rely on their athleticism. That's Bill Russell's game and back when the league was averaging nearly 119 points and 70+ rebounds, a stat line of 19 points and 24 rebounds would not sound as great had he played today.

Also, the stats were heavily inflated. His best season statistically was 1965, when he averaged 15.0 points and 24. Mathematically, that statline translated to 2015 would turn into 13.5 points a game, 15.8 rebounds a game. Factor in the fact that the Centers are stronger and more athletic, there are less shots going up, and more rules keeping him out of the lane, that line would most likely looking more like 10 points a game and 13-15 rebounds. Those are basically the same numbers as what DeAndre Jordan was putting up last season as he put up 11.5 points and 15 rebounds. He is very great passing skills, but that's really all that seperates him from the other centers that I have listed. And his free throw percentage was also pretty bad as it was at a career 56%. He won so many rings because he had a team like no body else in the league had. It's the equivelent of one team today with the talent of the Miami Heat and having 9 other teams having the talent of the Sacremento Kings. 11 rings is not something he would accomplish in any other era, especially because of the tea, that he had. He is a great only because of the time he played, but as a player, he wasn't very different from most defensive/athletic centers.

(Anthony Davis is not a Center)

http://www.basketball-reference.com...
http://www.basketball-reference.com...
http://www.basketball-reference.com...
Gibby97

Con

Gibby97 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by DTuz 1 year ago
DTuz
I said that mathematically his numbers would be 14 and 16. But I also said that with all the adjustments to the rules and style of the game, they would be closer to 10 and 14, and as proved by DeAndre Jordan, aren't even all-star numbers. You do the reverse and Duncan and Garnett would've had ridiculous numbers in the 60's. My point is stats aren't everything, and he is an all-time great, but if he played today, he'd be a Dwight Howard or DeAndre Jordan.
Posted by Gibby97 1 year ago
Gibby97
Thank you to my opponent for allowing me to post my final argument on this comment. My opponent claims Russell's modern day numbers (roughly 14 PPG and 16 RPG) would not be suffice in the modern NBA. Although those numbers would be impressive in today's NBA. Comparing to some of the modern day greats: Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett his averages are not farce. Tim Duncan's career averages equal out to about 20 PPG and 11 RPG (subject to change depending on Duncan's remarkable longevity). His "career year" was in 2002-03 when Duncan averaged just over 23 points and 13 rebounds per contest. Kevin Garnett has career averages of 18 points and 10 rebounds per contest roughly the same amount as Bill Russell's modernly adjusted numbers. KG's best year ( '03-04) where he averaged a gaudy 24 and 14. The point I am trying to make is Russell's numbers may be slightly less than the modern greats of today (Duncan and Garnett) but based on his Eleven Titles and impact on the game there is no question Bill Russell is an All-Time Great. Thanks again to my opponent for allowing me to reply to this truly great debate. Best of luck in the future.

http://www.basketball-reference.com...
http://www.basketball-reference.com...
Posted by Gibby97 1 year ago
Gibby97
Thank you to my opponent for allowing me to post my final argument on this comment. My opponent claims Russell's modern day numbers (roughly 14 PPG and 16 RPG) would not be suffice in the modern NBA. Although those numbers would be impressive in today's NBA. Comparing to some of the modern day greats: Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett his averages are not farce. Tim Duncan's career averages equal out to about 20 PPG and 11 RPG (subject to change depending on Duncan's remarkable longevity). His "career year" was in 2002-03 when Duncan averaged just over 23 points and 13 rebounds per contest. Kevin Garnett has career averages of 18 points and 10 rebounds per contest roughly the same amount as Bill Russell's modernly adjusted numbers. KG's best year ( '03-04) where he averaged a gaudy 24 and 14. The point I am trying to make is Russell's numbers may be slightly less than the modern greats of today (Duncan and Garnett) but based on his Eleven Titles and impact on the game there is no question Bill Russell is an All-Time Great. Thanks again to my opponent for allowing me to reply to this truly great debate. Best of luck in the future.

http://www.basketball-reference.com...
http://www.basketball-reference.com...
Posted by DTuz 1 year ago
DTuz
I wouldn't mind if you posted your final argument here.
Posted by Gibby97 1 year ago
Gibby97
My apologies about the delay, I have been busy with studies. Would it be possible for me to post my final argument in the comment section?
Posted by atheistliberal 1 year ago
atheistliberal
I want to accept this debate.
I love Bill Russell and I believe I can make a solid argument against your claims
Posted by TBSmothers 1 year ago
TBSmothers
I believe that you're the person that posted this debate a few months ago, in which I accepted. I just wanted to know if it's alright if I accept it this time. I was really overwhelmed last time I accepted it, but this time i'll be able to post something for every round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
DTuzGibby97Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff a round, so conduct to Pro.