>Like, why is having someone of that era at 6 okay... but
>having someone at 4 is absurd? Why the arbitrary cutoff? lol

I didn't see anyone making a case against a certain era - but the fact that there was only a dozen of teams (with most of them not being very good at all) when Russell won all those rings has to be considered, as the playoffs were a formality and it was all but guaranteed that you'd see the Lakers v. Celtics in the Finals every year. The modern era is far more competitive.

Also, many here have continually regarded Wilt as belonging in the ATG category. Same era as Russell - it's just that you have to look at the individual accomplishments outside of the team accomplishments. Wilt clearly was the more dominant individual talent and just a better basketball player than Russell. Also, saying that Russell wasn't as good as Wilt is not a knock at all - given Wilt's anomalous greatness.

I think people often cite Russell in GOAT arguments as a proxy argument for Jordan or LeBron - because for some - GOAT rankings is simply a ring-count. But Russell is the perfect reason why it *shouldn't* be just a ring-count. Russell has more rings than fingers, but it's virtually impossible to make a credible claim that he was a greater basketball player than Jordan, LeBron, or Kareem (all of whom have less rings by a wide margin).


-->