BadBaronRudigor

greatest SG (or even non-center) sure . . . easy . . . otherwise what does it matter that he is the only SG to ever lead a team to multiple titles. Like saying someone is the only offensive tackle to lead his team to multiple titles; it only matters if his impact is greater than the opponents' quarterbacks' impact.

As for the smaller league theory, that does make it easier to win it all though nowhere near as big a difference as you make out. Problem with your reasoning is that even with a smaller league, the GREATEST players still make the teams (you just don't have as many scrubs) so Russell still faced the best basketball players in the world, they were just concentrated on fewer teams. Thus each round was more difficult (faced more concentrated talent) but the impact of having less total rounds is probably greater than that effect.

That said, 11 championships in 13 years means much more than 6 in 15 despite that. Michael played 179 playoff games, Russell 165, very similar numbers. Even with the easier earlier round serieses, Michael had a playoff series winning percentage of 83%, Russell won 93% so that argument still won't fly. Michael was the second greatest winner of all time, Russell was the greatest.

Oh, and if you include consecutive groupings of 3 straight titles, the Celtics with Russell having an EIGHTPEAT would be essentially two fourpeats so not sure what the big deal about two threepeats when making this particular comparison is.

__________________
If you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk