Talk to me about the guy we name the important trophy after

Moderators: penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063

User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 92,280
And1: 98,046
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: Purgatory
   

Talk to me about the guy we name the important trophy after 

Post#1 » by Texas Chuck » Wed May 8, 2013 7:25 pm

Im curious now how to hear how some of you deal with Bill Russell. Ive been involved in a nice discussion in the 2000s thread regarding KG and how some good posters analyze players.

So what do you make of a guy whose strongest cases for being in the top 5,10, maybe lower for some you? are defense and winning. The defense is harder to evaluate because we dont have nearly the data we have for the modern era and winning is obviously more about the team and some solid posters seem to completely seperate that out.

So I guess my questios is how highly do you think of Russell the player and what do you base your opinion on?

drza, ElGee, and Doctor MJ are three guys Im really interested in hearing from since they take a significantly different approach from me, but Im also interested in hearing anyone and everyone elses thoughts as well.

I think this is my first OP on here, lol
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
lorak
Head Coach
Posts: 6,317
And1: 2,237
Joined: Nov 23, 2009

Re: Talk to me about the guy we name the important trophy af 

Post#2 » by lorak » Wed May 8, 2013 7:45 pm

I think Russell was almost as good as Celtics KG. Almost, because they were equal on D, but Garnett was better offensively because of his jump shot (so ability to stretch opp defense). And because of lack of data from the 60s I base my opinion on Russell mainly on games I have seen and data I stat tracked from these games.
tsherkin
Forum Mod - Raptors
Forum Mod - Raptors
Posts: 90,821
And1: 30,551
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
 

Re: Talk to me about the guy we name the important trophy af 

Post#3 » by tsherkin » Wed May 8, 2013 7:54 pm

Depends.

In era, I can't think of a better player. Importance to league development, massive legacy of winnng with a team built around his primary skills, big legacy. Great, great player.

Today, what would he be? Elite defensive player and rebounder. Good passer. Directly ported, his offense would probably still be tepid at best but he'd be really good in Tyson Chandler's sort of offensive role. His portabilty aould suffer, so your opinion will hinge on how you value on-era impact versus portability.
ceiling raiser
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,531
And1: 3,754
Joined: Jan 27, 2013

Re: Talk to me about the guy we name the important trophy af 

Post#4 » by ceiling raiser » Wed May 8, 2013 7:57 pm

DavidStern wrote:I think Russell was almost as good as Celtics KG. Almost, because they were equal on D, but Garnett was better offensively because of his jump shot (so ability to stretch opp defense). And because of lack of data from the 60s I base my opinion on Russell mainly on games I have seen and data I stat tracked from these games.


Question (for yourself and others) -- what's the complete list of Russell games you have? I think we've all seen the same tape, but perhaps a gem will pop up in this thread.
Now that's the difference between first and last place.
lorak
Head Coach
Posts: 6,317
And1: 2,237
Joined: Nov 23, 2009

Re: Talk to me about the guy we name the important trophy af 

Post#5 » by lorak » Wed May 8, 2013 8:11 pm

fpliii wrote:
DavidStern wrote:I think Russell was almost as good as Celtics KG. Almost, because they were equal on D, but Garnett was better offensively because of his jump shot (so ability to stretch opp defense). And because of lack of data from the 60s I base my opinion on Russell mainly on games I have seen and data I stat tracked from these games.


Question (for yourself and others) -- what's the complete list of Russell games you have? I think we've all seen the same tape, but perhaps a gem will pop up in this thread.


1955 vs Oregon
1962 ASG
1962 vs LAL# 7
1963 vs LAL# 6
1964 vs SFW# 4
1965 vs LAL# 1
1966 vs Royals #4 and 5
1966 vs LAL# 7
1967 vs Phila# 4
1969 ASG
1969 vs LAL #7
(most of them incomplete)

Do you have or watched anything outside of that?
BattleTested
Veteran
Posts: 2,506
And1: 530
Joined: Jun 22, 2011

Re: Talk to me about the guy we name the important trophy af 

Post#6 » by BattleTested » Wed May 8, 2013 8:14 pm

I judge guys based on how they did against their contemporaries. If we were to judge Russell based on today he'd be significantly worse. As it stands, he was arguably the most impactful basketball player of all time, and I rate him as the 2nd best player ever.
Lakers fan since 99.

PCProductions wrote:NBA has probably the most parity of any pro sport.
ceiling raiser
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,531
And1: 3,754
Joined: Jan 27, 2013

Re: Talk to me about the guy we name the important trophy af 

Post#7 » by ceiling raiser » Wed May 8, 2013 8:27 pm

DavidStern wrote:
fpliii wrote:
DavidStern wrote:I think Russell was almost as good as Celtics KG. Almost, because they were equal on D, but Garnett was better offensively because of his jump shot (so ability to stretch opp defense). And because of lack of data from the 60s I base my opinion on Russell mainly on games I have seen and data I stat tracked from these games.


Question (for yourself and others) -- what's the complete list of Russell games you have? I think we've all seen the same tape, but perhaps a gem will pop up in this thread.


1955 vs Oregon
1962 ASG
1962 vs LAL# 7
1963 vs LAL# 6
1964 vs SFW# 4
1965 vs LAL# 1
1966 vs Royals #4 and 5
1966 vs LAL# 7
1967 vs Phila# 4
1969 ASG
1969 vs LAL #7
(most of them incomplete)

Do you have or watched anything outside of that?


Thanks for your response. Yeah, I've seen the bolded, haven't seen the 55 college game aside from a couple of clips on dantheman's youtube (though I'm aware of its existence). I'm not a big video collector, though I figure that at least a few others have to be out there since the game of the week evidently almost always included the Celtics, back in the day. Hopefully some other poster else has some other games (though I think most lists will resemble yours or contain subsets thereof).

OT: Do you know if 73 Finals Game 5 has been uploaded yet (haven't seen it yet)? I only caught some of it during the live broadcast, but it would be useful for analysis/tracking plays.
Now that's the difference between first and last place.
lorak
Head Coach
Posts: 6,317
And1: 2,237
Joined: Nov 23, 2009

Re: Talk to me about the guy we name the important trophy af 

Post#8 » by lorak » Wed May 8, 2013 8:37 pm

fpliii wrote:
OT: Do you know if 73 Finals Game 5 has been uploaded yet (haven't seen it yet)? I only caught some of it during the live broadcast, but it would be useful for analysis/tracking plays.


So far I haven't seen it. However there's request on one of the biggest torrent site with NBA stuff, so maybe it will be uploaded in near future.
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,140
And1: 9,758
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: Talk to me about the guy we name the important trophy af 

Post#9 » by penbeast0 » Wed May 8, 2013 9:29 pm

Texas Chuck wrote:Im curious now how to hear how some of you deal with Bill Russell. Ive been involved in a nice discussion in the 2000s thread regarding KG and how some good posters analyze players.

So what do you make of a guy whose strongest cases for being in the top 5,10, maybe lower for some you? are defense and winning . . .


And arguably the GOAT rebounder (He, Rodman, and Wilt are the only 3 with a really strong case. Russell's per minute rebound rates are higher than contemporary Wilt but Wilt played more minutes and at a lower pace; Rodman is the best per minute rebound rate of all time but if he was playing the far greater minutes and role of the other two, he might or might not be able to maintain his rebound rate at that level. And Russell didn't cheat of his defensive assignment for rebounds the way Rodman did in the second half of his career.

So, out of the 4 Wages of Win identified factors that determine winning, Russell was in the GOAT argument on TWO of them . . . Defensive impact and Rebounding differential.

Ignoring that is like ignoring Jordan's efficiency when comparing him to Allen Iverson.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 62,534
And1: 16,334
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: Talk to me about the guy we name the important trophy af 

Post#10 » by Dr Positivity » Wed May 8, 2013 9:41 pm

If you're concerned about Russell's scoring, look at this way. Larry Bird's place as a top 10 player of all time is largely undisputed, because despite not having an athletic advantage that other all time greats have, having arguably the greatest combination of skills and IQ the game has seen makes up for it. Now just switch skills and athletic advantages for Russell. Sure Russell may not have a skill advantage that other all time greats have, but he makes up for it with arguably the greatest combination of athleticism and IQ the game has seen. The only ways to get around that to throw cold water on Russell, is to argue a) Bird's skill is worth more than Russell's athleticism/Russell's skill is a bigger problem than Bird's athleticism, or b) Bird is overrated too compared to more complete players and is a SF Dirk and Nash
Liberate The Zoomers
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,017
And1: 21,973
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: Talk to me about the guy we name the important trophy af 

Post#11 » by Doctor MJ » Thu May 9, 2013 12:25 am

Texas Chuck wrote:Im curious now how to hear how some of you deal with Bill Russell. Ive been involved in a nice discussion in the 2000s thread regarding KG and how some good posters analyze players.

So what do you make of a guy whose strongest cases for being in the top 5,10, maybe lower for some you? are defense and winning. The defense is harder to evaluate because we dont have nearly the data we have for the modern era and winning is obviously more about the team and some solid posters seem to completely seperate that out.

So I guess my questios is how highly do you think of Russell the player and what do you base your opinion on?

drza, ElGee, and Doctor MJ are three guys Im really interested in hearing from since they take a significantly different approach from me, but Im also interested in hearing anyone and everyone elses thoughts as well.

I think this is my first OP on here, lol


You're quite right that it's hard to quantify defense. I think thought that this analysis from ElGee hammers it home quite well:

ElGee wrote:Estimated Pace-Adjusted Numbers 1965

ORtg

Code: Select all

1.  Cincinnati    98.2
2.  Los Angeles   97.5
3.  Baltimore     97.1
4.  St. Louis     94.1
5.  Philadelphia  93.7
LEAGUE AVG.       93.4
6.  New York      92.8
7.  Boston        90.2
8.  Detroit       89.8
9.  San Francisco 86.8


DRtg

Code: Select all

1.  Boston        83.5
2.  St. Louis     91.5
3.  San Francisco 91.9
4.  Detroit       92.6
LEAGUE AVG.       93.4
5.  Philadelphia  93.9
6.  Los Angeles   95.8
7.  New York      96.0
8.  Cincinnati    96.3
9.  Baltimore     99.0



So these are his estimates for offensive and defensive efficiency in '64-65. The caveats:

1) ElGee gets quote here because b-r doesn't list their attempts at this on the season pages, but they have made attempts and their numbers don't tend to be drastically different. If you're debating about whether these numbers or raw PPG is more useful, no need to debate that. These are much better.

2) Still b-r doesn't list them because we don't have all the data so some estimates are required. b-r as a business is being cautious with what they attach their name too. ElGee as an analyst is simply getting and giving the best estimates available.

3) This is not a random year. This is the year where Boston's outlier status is most obvious. However if this data were completely out of the blue, I wouldn't be mentioning it.

So understand:

The gap between #1 & #2 on defense is bigger than #2 and the worst team in the league.
The gap between Boston's #1 defense and league median is more than double what the comparable gap is on offense.

This tendency for a team to lap the field like this basically started and ended with Russell, and that's why his team won 11 rings.

Additionally: This tendency for defense to allow for far greater dominance than offense also basically ended after the '60s.

That's just pure numbers though. Qualitatively, what could make Russell so damn dominant? Let's compare him to a couple other guys:

1st, George Mikan and the old school bigs. These guys were big on defense but after goaltending was put in place they didn't do what Russell did. Most noteworthy difference: Russell was far more likely to leave his feet.

It might seem hard to believe that Russell's early coaches tried to get him to stop jumping so much to contest shots given how central that is to modern defense, but their reasons are still valid today: If the offensive player can get you up in the air without him actually committing to a shot, then you're at his mercy.

Russell got away with it not because he was more agile than Mikan, but because his instincts were incredible. He was jumping a lot, but he wasn't getting faked into jumping.

Of course Russell also was far more agile than Mikan, but the agility only really is able to be understood once you get to...

2nd, Wilt Chamberlain.

Now first with Wilt, don't use the '65 data I gave their to judge Wilt's capabilities. He was hurt that year. If I were to give the data from '64, you'd see Wilt's Warriors on defense was closer in effectiveness to the Celtics than they were to the pack. '64 wasn't a typical Wilt year either (it was particularly good), but without question Wilt when he was on was a great defender which should surprise no one.

What a lot of people have trouble getting their head around though is how Russell could be better than Wilt on defense if Wilt was basically just someone with Russell's agility and coordination but greater size.

And a major part of the answer is: Wilt wasn't that. Wilt was incredibly agile for his size, but he still wasn't as agile as Russell. So what did Russell's agility allow him to do? The Horizontal Game was what Russell called it.

Russell could actually challenge more shots than Wilt because he was agile enough to run out to the perimeter and get back in in time for the rebound in a way the larger Wilt couldn't.

Incidentally, Russell said Wilt was better at the Vertical Game, and meant that he was better at disrupting shots in terms of the vertical space that shots needed to go through. This shouldn't be trivialized...but remember that Russell was 6'9" with very long arms and was an Olympic level high jumper. Russell could contest shots well above the rim, and while you'd love him to be able to go even higher like Wilt, at a certain point the added vertical reach isn't worth the loss of agility.

Of course, this doesn't really touch upon the part of the game that was possibly the most important for Russell. So let's talk about...

3) Marc Gasol. Before this year I'd have brought up Garnett and Duncan, but Gasol seems like a particularly appropriate guy to pick right now.

Gasol just won the DPOY. Gasol isn't a great shot blocker and he gets 8 rebounds per game in a league where a dominant rebounder can still flirt with doubling that. He's not that quick, and so he really isn't able to influence huge amounts of space with respect to jump shooters. So why is he a great defender?

Because he's really damn smart. If you see how the play is developing before the play develops you don't have to be very fast to get to a disruptive spot. More than that, if you see where a player is developing you can tell your teammates to do things to stop the play before it stops. Gasol is a master at these things.

So was Russell. You may be aware that Russell coached the Celtics to title his last two years as a player. This wasn't a situation where Russell was so explosive and tireless that you didn't need to play smart as a team to win. It was a situation where Russell had already been the coach on the floor, so him becoming the official coach simply meant keeping track of player minutes, etc. (Not that that's easy when you're multi-tasking, and Russell said he would sometimes make some boneheaded screw ups his first year as coach leaving guys on the bench because he was too focused on the games.)

Anywho, you put all that together, and you've got basically the perfect body and mind for a defender. I don't believe any player has ever contributed more to his teams over a career except possibly Kareem who played forever.

As I say all of this though, while I'm sure Russell could adjust and thrive in the modern game, there's no doubt that the 3-point shot and range of modern shooting diminishes the impact of great shotblockers. Russell's impact today would be big, but it would not be what it was.
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 22,395
And1: 18,823
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: Talk to me about the guy we name the important trophy af 

Post#12 » by HeartBreakKid » Thu May 9, 2013 1:24 am

I used to have Russell in my top 15, but I honestly think he is top ten material after thinking about it objectively. But there is another problem.

I think a lot of Russell's defensive strengths, and I have a hard time separating it from Kevin Garnett. To those who have Russell over KG (which I'm sure most do), what makes Bill a better defender in KG? Numbers are welcome, but I'd also like to see reasoning for those numbers. What does Russell truly do better? I suppose rebounding would be one, though KG is probably the best defensive rebounder of his era.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 53,017
And1: 21,973
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: Talk to me about the guy we name the important trophy af 

Post#13 » by Doctor MJ » Thu May 9, 2013 1:33 am

HeartBreakKid wrote:I used to have Russell in my top 15, but I honestly think he is top ten material after thinking about it objectively. But there is another problem.

I think a lot of Russell's defensive strengths, and I have a hard time separating it from Kevin Garnett. To those who have Russell over KG (which I'm sure most do), what makes Bill a better defender in KG? Numbers are welcome, but I'd also like to see reasoning for those numbers. What does Russell truly do better? I suppose rebounding would be one, though KG is probably the best defensive rebounder of his era.


Well there's an obvious difference. I won't say that the correct interpretation is obvious - it's very debatable - but to me it's THE thing to consider:

Bill Russell was the greatest shot blocker in history.
Kevn Garnett has never stood out on that front much at all.

Is this solely because the smart play in the modern age is to not actually try to block many shots or did Russell have something Garnett didn't?

My best estimate is that it's because Russell has a talent Garnett doesn't, but I could have my mind changed in the future. Two exemplars to consider:

1) Hakeem as an explosive defender is clearly the closest thing we've seen to Russell, and on the whole people consider his defense to be quite cerebral as well. If what Hakeem was doing was the smart thing...then we don't have to look back to Russell to see what a superior defensive talent looks like, we can just look back to Hakeem. If we start seeing evidence though that Hakeem wasn't actually very effective on defense, then that makes the case for Garnett more bullet proof.

2) Seeing Anthony Davis emerge in college made me very excited because it was really clear that Davis' college impact was about the closest we'd seen to Russell in a very long time. If Davis blooms in the NBA, the specifics of his bloom may tell us a lot about the limits of what a defender of the long, smart & agile mode can do (and note all the guys I've mentioned are part of this mold).
Getting ready for the RealGM 100 on the PC Board

Come join the WNBA Board if you're a fan!
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 22,395
And1: 18,823
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: Talk to me about the guy we name the important trophy af 

Post#14 » by HeartBreakKid » Thu May 9, 2013 1:39 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
HeartBreakKid wrote:I used to have Russell in my top 15, but I honestly think he is top ten material after thinking about it objectively. But there is another problem.

I think a lot of Russell's defensive strengths, and I have a hard time separating it from Kevin Garnett. To those who have Russell over KG (which I'm sure most do), what makes Bill a better defender in KG? Numbers are welcome, but I'd also like to see reasoning for those numbers. What does Russell truly do better? I suppose rebounding would be one, though KG is probably the best defensive rebounder of his era.


Well there's an obvious difference. I won't say that the correct interpretation is obvious - it's very debatable - but to me it's THE thing to consider:

Bill Russell was the greatest shot blocker in history.
Kevn Garnett has never stood out on that front much at all.

Is this solely because the smart play in the modern age is to not actually try to block many shots or did Russell have something Garnett didn't?

My best estimate is that it's because Russell has a talent Garnett doesn't, but I could have my mind changed in the future. Two exemplars to consider:

1) Hakeem as an explosive defender is clearly the closest thing we've seen to Russell, and on the whole people consider his defense to be quite cerebral as well. If what Hakeem was doing was the smart thing...then we don't have to look back to Russell to see what a superior defensive talent looks like, we can just look back to Hakeem. If we start seeing evidence though that Hakeem wasn't actually very effective on defense, then that makes the case for Garnett more bullet proof.

2) Seeing Anthony Davis emerge in college made me very excited because it was really clear that Davis' college impact was about the closest we'd seen to Russell in a very long time. If Davis blooms in the NBA, the specifics of his bloom may tell us a lot about the limits of what a defender of the long, smart & agile mode can do (and note all the guys I've mentioned are part of this mold).



Shot blocking actually slipped my mind, I'm used to looking at other things in regards to defense that the most flamboyant part of a defensive play was ignored.

I suppose my line of thought was that KG was good enough to get respect, and respect is what makes a shot blocker so good, so I guess subconsciously I look at KG's lack of shot blocking not that big of a con since he is still disruptive. Also, because KG is so long, I figure most players have to shoot higher arcing shots regardless of the chances of whether their shot will be blocked or not.

But yeah, thinking about it, shot blocking would be a huge element in Bill's favor.


Obviously Bill would not get 10 blocked shots like he was fabled to do in his era. But if Serge Ibaka can get nearly 4 blocks, then Bill who is even longer, at the very least as athletic and definitely smarter could replicate such a feat with ease. Bill would certainly have been fun to have seen in today's era :(.
ISB
Rookie
Posts: 1,235
And1: 210
Joined: Nov 23, 2006

Re: Talk to me about the guy we name the important trophy af 

Post#15 » by ISB » Thu May 9, 2013 5:44 am

HeartBreakKid wrote:I used to have Russell in my top 15, but I honestly think he is top ten material after thinking about it objectively. But there is another problem.

I think a lot of Russell's defensive strengths, and I have a hard time separating it from Kevin Garnett. To those who have Russell over KG (which I'm sure most do), what makes Bill a better defender in KG? Numbers are welcome, but I'd also like to see reasoning for those numbers. What does Russell truly do better? I suppose rebounding would be one, though KG is probably the best defensive rebounder of his era.


I think the biggest difference is era. Russel was a bigger outlier in his era than KG was in his. I personally don't see the point in ranking guys in terms of what they would be if you suddenly dropped him in to 2013.
Langdon Alger
Senior
Posts: 577
And1: 100
Joined: Jan 28, 2013

Re: Talk to me about the guy we name the important trophy af 

Post#16 » by Langdon Alger » Thu May 9, 2013 7:56 am

Isn't the most important trophy the Larry O'Brien trophy?
User avatar
Texas Chuck
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
Posts: 92,280
And1: 98,046
Joined: May 19, 2012
Location: Purgatory
   

Re: Talk to me about the guy we name the important trophy af 

Post#17 » by Texas Chuck » Thu May 9, 2013 11:17 am

Langdon Alger wrote:Isn't the most important trophy the Larry O'Brien trophy?


fair point. :D

I didnt say "most" tho and since this subforum dedicates itself to the individual moreso than the team I thought it would be okay.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
ceiling raiser
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,531
And1: 3,754
Joined: Jan 27, 2013

Re: Talk to me about the guy we name the important trophy af 

Post#18 » by ceiling raiser » Thu May 9, 2013 2:31 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:1) ElGee gets quote here because b-r doesn't list their attempts at this on the season pages, but they have made attempts and their numbers don't tend to be drastically different. If you're debating about whether these numbers or raw PPG is more useful, no need to debate that. These are much better.

2) Still b-r doesn't list them because we don't have all the data so some estimates are required. b-r as a business is being cautious with what they attach their name too. ElGee as an analyst is simply getting and giving the best estimates available.


Do you know if there's a (relatively) complete listing on their site of their attempts, or just for a few teams/seasons here and there (I'll check the blog archives later today when I have a chance)? I have files for ElGee's and Oliver's attempts already, but B-R's would be a great addition. Both are good, but it's always nice to add more for comparison's sake.
Now that's the difference between first and last place.
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 62,534
And1: 16,334
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: Talk to me about the guy we name the important trophy af 

Post#19 » by Dr Positivity » Thu May 9, 2013 2:50 pm

HeartBreakKid wrote:I used to have Russell in my top 15, but I honestly think he is top ten material after thinking about it objectively. But there is another problem.

I think a lot of Russell's defensive strengths, and I have a hard time separating it from Kevin Garnett. To those who have Russell over KG (which I'm sure most do), what makes Bill a better defender in KG? Numbers are welcome, but I'd also like to see reasoning for those numbers. What does Russell truly do better? I suppose rebounding would be one, though KG is probably the best defensive rebounder of his era.


In addition to the shotblocking and rebounding, while KG may be as intelligent as any other defender, Russell's defensive IQ seems even to eclipse him if only because of a diabolical strategic approach in addition to the genius instincts. Here is an article from 1965 every basketball fan should read http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... AG1077812/

With that said. Lately I have been leaning towards ranking KG over Russell because of the offensive gap
Liberate The Zoomers
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 22,395
And1: 18,823
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: Talk to me about the guy we name the important trophy af 

Post#20 » by HeartBreakKid » Thu May 9, 2013 3:03 pm

ISB wrote:
I think the biggest difference is era. Russel was a bigger outlier in his era than KG was in his. I personally don't see the point in ranking guys in terms of what they would be if you suddenly dropped him in to 2013.


I don't necessarily exclusively do that. I like to compare them in different eras or with different rules. When I compare basketball players who played in different eras, I think of almost every level of basketball from the basics of streetball, to the NBA (any era).

Someone brought up 3 point shooting, but really 3 point shooting only became such a huge focal point of offenses really recently. In the early 2000s, even the mid 2000s, the 3 pointers were not used in the same fashion. So I really see Russell's dominance not being any different (or much different I should say) in any era.


Though to counter your point more directly, I don't see the point in comparing two athletes who are from different eras solely based on the merit of what they've done against athletes of their time. At that point, you're not actually comparing them. There needs to be some hypothetical in the equation, some form of imagination, other wise we're just arbitrarily assuming that if someone dominated their era more they're better which is silly.

Return to Player Comparisons