I went ahead and watched these, and there's nothing new here, it's the same few arguments people have always tried to make against Russell
1. He played in a weak era
2. His teams were stacked
3. His stats weren't impressive
1. You play who is in front of you
We don't hold it against Gordie Howe that he played in a league with 6 teams, he's universally revered as a top-5 player ever, it shouldn't be held against Russell either, he was born when he was born and he played when he played, and he absolutely dominated the era he happened to play in
2. The Boston Celtics of his era were undoubtably the best team in the league, 11 rings in 13 years makes that obvious, but just counting the number of hall of famers he played with is disingenuous and essentially revisionist
Role players on multiple championship teams get in to the hall of fame based on the merit of the team they played on, not based on their individual talent
Outside of Cousey and Havlicek he never played with another true star talent
Just wait, Draymond Green and his 8 points a game will be in the hall of fame one day
3. His offensive stats weren't impressive, true, but his defensive stats are under represented because he played before blocked shots were a recorded stat
He's also second all time in rebounds (I understand the pace was inflated, but his rebound rate is still among the best in history)
____________________
None of this does anything to discount the fact that he won 11 titles in 13 years, including 8 in a row, and was the head coach for the last 2
Winning > Stats, especially in basketball, and Russell is the greatest winner we've ever seen
Henri Richard needed 7 extra seasons of play to equal Russell's championship totals on those stacked Habs teams