Can you justify Russell > KAJ to start a franchise?

[Ryoga Hibiki]

I think it's very risky to assume that a totally unremarkable (in the all-time sense) offensive player all of a sudden becomes elite today. Basketball has greatly improved over the last 50 years, so even if we give Russell the benefit of modern training, we also have to assume that other players get better too - it's not like Russell is the only one who improves. I think Russell's improvement, and league's improvement, would go hand in hand, so he would still be a bit above average offensive player - maybe a better Noah offensively (and overall, like I've said before). It's certainly not bad, but not elite, either.

The point is that, from the footage I could see about Russell, I'm not sure what he is missing to become a high level offensive player compared to guys I'm mentioning.
The touch around the basket, quickness, explosiveness, smarts, hands, length, vision, coordination... put everything together and what is he missing? That's a prospect you should work on, but no more than a guy like Dwight!
Then, if we're talking numbers we might not be that far.
I'd say in the 17/22ppg range with .6+ ts%, 4-5 apg... is that enough to be an all time great with super elite defence?

[Texas Chuck]

if you are saying Russell (and Rodman) wouldnt be great scorers, then sure we agree. I happen to think you can be a high-level offensive player without being an elite scorer.

Any examples of high level PF/C offensive players in XXI century?

sure. guys who werent great scorers but were really good offensive players?

Divac
Marc Gasol
Noah
Marion
Diaw
Brad Miller
Odom

[Jaivl]

The point is that, from the footage I could see about Russell, I'm not sure what he is missing to become a high level offensive player compared to guys I'm mentioning.
The touch around the basket, quickness, explosiveness, smarts, hands, length, vision, coordination... put everything together and what is he missing? That's a prospect you should work on, but no more than a guy like Dwight!
Then, if we're talking numbers we might not be that far.
I'd say in the 17/22ppg range with .6+ ts%, 4-5 apg... is that enough to be an all time great with super elite defence?

"A guy like Dwight" (Orlando version) has about 40 pounds on Russell and shoots +75% at the rim.

Russell has the passing, the screen-setting, the positioning... a good set of tools to be a good offensive player, but there is no way he scores +20 points on +.600 TS%. His career TS% is 0.47, which would be about a 0.53 in this era. His FT shooting is Howard-like. I'd say about 15 points on 54 TS%, Marc Gasol style.

[lorak]

I'd say in the 17/22ppg range with .6+ ts%, 4-5 apg... is that enough to be an all time great with super elite defence?

Very unlikely he would score so many points. Lets look at Russell's two seasons: one with career high in APG and another with career high in PPG (so probably his best offensive years) and adjust his numbers per 2014 pace and per 40 MPG (which is still to much, as no one plays more than 39 MPG this year):

Code: Select all

YEAR   PPG   RPG   APG   TS%
1962   12,0   15,0   2,9   -1,0
1967   10,1   16,0   4,4   -0,7



So we have GOAT level rebounder (however probably much better on defensive glass than offensive), good passer for a big and very limited scorer. No doubt he would be the best defender in the NBA, but on offense he would be below average player, because even good passing alone isn't enough for big to have positive impact on offense (even Marc Gasol, probably the best big passer now, isn't too good offensively).

if you are saying Russell (and Rodman) wouldnt be great scorers, then sure we agree. I happen to think you can be a high-level offensive player without being an elite scorer.

Any examples of high level PF/C offensive players in XXI century?

sure. guys who werent great scorers but were really good offensive players?

Divac
Marc Gasol
Noah
Marion
Diaw
Brad Miller
Odom

First of all not all of them were/are good offensive player. I know you don't like RAPM, but for example Gasol (-1.44) or Noah (+0.41) aren't so good offensively as their APG numbers might suggest. The same with Divac (he was very good defensive player, offensively his shot was to inconsitent and his passes to risky).

Second, good offensive bigs you mentioned have one common ability: shot good enough to stretch the floor. That's from where most of their offensive impact came from and Russell didn't have even average midrange shot.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Well, I'm counting on an improvement in his FT shooting to around 70% (hard to justify, actually, considering there has been no overall league improvement) and his FG% in the 58-60% range counting on him becoming an elite roller, with his mid range jumper complementing his game.
Gasol is too different as a player, I like more the Noah comparisn who you should add more explosion, I think that woul turn Noah in a player scoring in the high teens as well.

As far as size, I see Russell to be similar to Olajuwon, actually, so he could have peaked around 6-11 250-255.

[ronnymac2]

Any examples of high level PF/C offensive players in XXI century?

sure. guys who werent great scorers but were really good offensive players?

Divac
Marc Gasol
Noah
Marion
Diaw
Brad Miller
Odom

First of all not all of them were/are good offensive player. I know you don't like RAPM, but for example Gasol (-1.44) or Noah (+0.41) aren't so good offensively as their APG numbers might suggest. The same with Divac (he was very good defensive player, offensively his shot was to inconsitent and his passes to risky).

Second, good offensive bigs you mentioned have one common ability: shot good enough to stretch the floor. That's from where most of their offensive impact came from and Russell didn't have even average midrange shot.

Tyson Chandler.

[lorak]

Tyson Chandler.

Much, much efficient scorer than Russell and still his offensive impact wasn't anything special. From 2002 to 2011 his ORAPM is -1.0 (however during some seasons was positive on offense).

[ceiling raiser]

First of all not all of them were/are good offensive player. I know you don't like RAPM, but for example Gasol (-1.44) or Noah (+0.41) aren't so good offensively as their APG numbers might suggest. The same with Divac (he was very good defensive player, offensively his shot was to inconsitent and his passes to risky).

Second, good offensive bigs you mentioned have one common ability: shot good enough to stretch the floor. That's from where most of their offensive impact came from and Russell didn't have even average midrange shot.

I think this is a good point. Even if Russell were to be average positionally by RAPM, bigs are generally below average when compared to league average. From a recent APM study (which I believe is on the same scale as RAPM from playing around with the numbers, someone can correct me if I'm wrong, or provide splits for RAPM):

Code: Select all

Positional Averages

Here the averages for offensive, defensive, and total adjusted plus/minus by position (weighted by possessions played):

Pos   Off   Def   Tot
---  ----  ----  ----
 PG   0.8  -2.0  -1.2
 SG   0.5  -0.8  -0.3
 SF   0.9   0.2   1.0
 PF  -0.8   1.0   0.3
  C  -2.1   2.5   0.5

source: http://www.countthebasket.com/blog/2008 ... lus-minus/

So even if Russell was a good offensive center today, he could still have negative impact on that end when compared to league average.

What do we know about Russell offensively?

+:
passing (high-post)
passing (outlet)
screen-setting
ball-handling
driving to the basket (potentially, need to see more from the footage)
finishing (potentially, at least off of alley-oops and putbacks)

-:
shooting in general
post scoring in general
free-throw shooting

Shot selection is tough because the Celtics played for the quick shot, maybe not the best one. There are also competition issues offensively. Russell seemed to be an adept offensive rebounder, but the Celtics eschewed ORB's by all accounts in favor of getting out on defense to prevent transition baskets/initiate the pressure defense.

I don't think we can assume Russell would be a very positive contributor overall offensively (and he could be negative, because above average offensively at center is probably below average on that end overall).

[penbeast0]

I don't think Russell would be a particularly effective offensive player. I think of him as basically Dennis Rodman with 3 more inches of height, shotblocking skills, and a Jordan level of natural basketball intelligencel and competitiveness. That's still not a terrific offensive player . . . but there are a LOT of scorers out there, there are very few impact players who stand out strongly from the mean in any area of basketball. Russell was GOAT or top 3 at worst in two of the 4 major categories that affect winning, Defensive efficiency and Rebounding differential. Few if any other players approach peak in two areas (I haven't really looked as closely at how players affect turnover differential for their teams . . . but probably should some day).

If you are an elite defensive and rebounding team, you can get away with mediocre efficiency on the offensive end . . . there are always Rudy Gay types available who can get their shot if your standards for offensive efficiency aren't high . . . just as if you are an elite offensive efficiency and turnover differential team, you can afford to be weak in rebounding like the current Miami Heat. IT's about separating your team from the mean in ways that translate to wins, not about stats or even being the basketball equivalent of "a 5 tool player."

[Texas Chuck]

I think this is a good point. Even if Russell were to be average positionally by RAPM, bigs are generally below average when compared to league average. From a recent APM study (which I believe is on the same scale as RAPM from playing around with the numbers, someone can correct me if I'm wrong, or provide splits for RAPM):

I guess my comment would be that if he is a better than average offensive center than he has a positive impact on the offensive end unless Im willing to sacrifice having a true center on the floor and the other benefits that come with that by replacing him with a smaller player. I don't think you should include center in a group with PGs and wings when discussing whether or not they have a positive offensive impact. Just like its not fair to say a good defensive pg isnt a good defensive player because they don't have the impact overall of an average center.

And since he is so brilliant in the areas of defense, rebounding, leadership if he's even average offensively for a center(my guess is that he would be slightly better than that at worst) then he becomes even more valuable offensively because he generates extra possessions and to replace (if you even could) what he does in those other areas would require you to play multiple defensive/rebounding specialists who would be even worse offensively.

Have to take players as a whole.

[ceiling raiser]

I think this is a good point. Even if Russell were to be average positionally by RAPM, bigs are generally below average when compared to league average. From a recent APM study (which I believe is on the same scale as RAPM from playing around with the numbers, someone can correct me if I'm wrong, or provide splits for RAPM):

I guess my comment would be that if he is a better than average offensive center than he has a positive impact on the offensive end unless Im willing to sacrifice having a true center on the floor and the other benefits that come with that by replacing him with a smaller player. I don't think you should include center in a group with PGs and wings when discussing whether or not they have a positive offensive impact. Just like its not fair to say a good defensive pg isnt a good defensive player because they don't have the impact overall of an average center.

And since he is so brilliant in the areas of defense, rebounding, leadership if he's even average offensively for a center(my guess is that he would be slightly better than that at worst) then he becomes even more valuable offensively because he generates extra possessions and to replace (if you even could) what he does in those other areas would require you to play multiple defensive/rebounding specialists who would be even worse offensively.

Have to take players as a whole.

I certainly agree, all of this has to be considered relative to position and role. I'm a huge Russell fan and think he'd be very successful today or in any era, I was just trying to comment on DS/lorak's points.

[lorak]

I generally agree with yours points, guys, and I really like Peanbest's comparison to Rodman (but I think Russell would be worse offensive rebounder). So I have question to you all: where Russell would rank offensively among centers in 2013/14 season and 2003/04?

[Texas Chuck]

I was just trying to comment on DS/lorak's points.

No I understand. I agree with what lorak is saying too. I think he's being fairly realistic about Russell's offensive game in this era.

I just wanted to point out that he should still be considered positive value on the offensive end even if his measured impact is slightly lower than the league average, due to his positional disavantage plus what it would cost his team as a whole to replace his other contributions making his team's offense worse or making sacrifices defensively.

[TrueLAfan]

I don’t think you’re going to go wrong in any way. To get back to the OP—as in, can you make a case for Russell over KAJ to start a team? Sure. Absolutely. Look, there are a limited number of groups that a team fits into in terms of offense and defense. If we break it into “Strong/Average/Weak,” it looks something like this. Teams are either:

1. Strong Defense/Strong Offense
2. Strong Defense/Average Offense
3. Strong Defense/Weak Offense
4. Average Defense/Strong Offense
5. Average Defense/Average Offense
6. Average Defense/Weak Offense
7. Weak Defense/Strong Offense
8. Weak Defense/Average Offense
9. Weak Defense/Weak Offense

You can break it down further, but you get my point.

I think you’d definitely take Russell for 1, 4, and 7. If I’ve already got a strong offense and defense, I’d want the extra D of Russell over the extra O of Kareem. If my defense is average or weak, but I’ve got a strong offense, it’s an even a stronger pull for Russell. I’m a huge Kareem fan, but I get that. It basically comes down to this. If my offense is already strong, let’s say I’ve got a decent but somewhat limited amount of touches for starting C. Let’s say he gets off 12 shots a game. Kareem is going to get you about 16 points a game. Russell is going to get you about 13.5 points. Do I think Russell’s better passing (maybe; more on that later), rebounding, and D compared to Kareem is worth 2.5 points a game? Yes, I do. And I’ll be blunt about this—I think Bill Russell’s passing, rebounding and D is worth more than 2.5 points a game compared to any center that has ever played in the NBA.

But most of the time, on most teams, Kareem is going to be worth a lot more than 2.5 points per game on offense. Nevertheless, I think numbers 5 and 8 would be close. I can see making an argument for Russell. The more you utilize your C offensively, the more Kareem’s value goes up relative to Russell. I don’t think this is really debatable … and that’s why any team with a weak offense is likely to take Kareem. So I think numbers 3, 6, and 9 definitely go to Kareem. In another thread, I noted that closest parallel to Russell today is probably Joakim Noah. (So, yeah, at least some of the comments about “Rich Man’s Noah” are my fault.) And I think Russell is markedly better, and I think Noah will finish in the top 6 of MVP voting … and that says a lot about how valuable Bill Russell would be today. But the Bulls are the wrong team for Noah. If the 2014 Bulls had Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, they’d be better—and better than they would be with Bill Russell. Strong D/Weak Offense.

That leaves #2. This is an interesting question. If your team D is already really good, would Russell make you that much better? Better than Kareem’s range, volume, and eFG% if your team has an average offense? Tough.

At any rate, the OP is a good question. I will bring up a couple of issues I’ve seen mentioned. Bill Russell is a better rebounder and, maybe a better passer. The differences are not great, though. In his first 12 seasons, Kareem’s rebound % was 17.6. Russell’s rebound % is a shade under 20. If you’re playing 40 mpg in a league where about 85 rebounds a game are available (i.e. now), that’s a difference of about 1.5 boards a game. It’s about the same as the difference between DeAndre Jordan and Kevin Love this year. It’s definitely there, but you’re talking about two guys that are among the league leaders in rebounding. And if you think I’m not being fair in comparing Bill Russell to “only” Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s first 12 seasons … Bill Russell played 12 full seasons in the NBA in his career.

Passing is more problematic. Kareem averaged 4.4 assists per game in his first 12 seasons; Russell averaged 4.3 for his career. But there were more assists per game available in Russell’s time. But assists were awarded on a higher percentage of baskets made during Kareem’s first 12 seasons. But Russell had to play alongside Cousy for several years. But Kareem played alongside Oscar and Magic for several years in his first 12. This is one of those “So, well, kinda, I dunno” things. I am willing to give Russell the edge, although I think Kareem’s passing is underrated. The difference, however, is (very) small.

I’ll add that I also find the idea of “Kareem will only play in …” both inaccurate and disingenuous. Kareem’s college statement about wanting to play in New York or L.A. was made in the context of questions regarding the ABA draft. And, let’s be real. He was from New York and played college ball in L.A. Where do you expect him to prefer to play? He went to Milwaukee and played his a$$ off. And it’s not like he underachieved or played poorly with the Bucks, or didn’t work with them to get compensation when he left. (The Bucks got a 25 year old double double C that had led the league in blocks, a 23 year old G that made two of the next three all-star games, and the #2 and #8 picks in the draft. That’s a motherlode of value.) I don’t hold it against Kareem for being traded a total of one time in his career and having his previous team get quality for him. And the Bucks respected that too. As Kareem said recently, “They appreciated that and they appreciated that I kept my mouth shut about it. I gave them the opportunity to approach other teams, and they figured out the best deal they could make for themselves.”

[CaliBullsFan]

For Russell I always say the same thing. Imagine Chris Webber offensively(with a much worse jumpshot), Ben Wallace defensively, in Shawn Kemp's body. His prime averages would be

14-16 points per game
13-15 rebounds per game
4-5 assist per game
3-4 blocks per game
1-2 steals per game

and i think he would be best at PF where he could have a greater impact defensively

Pretty good estimation about his stats. I'm not sure about him playing PF though. Ben Wallace was roughly Russell's size (actually even two inches shorter, with two inches shorter wingspan, too, than Russ), and he played center. I think a stretch four like Ryan Anderson would be the best fit to Russell. Russell would be listed as 6'11'', 240-245 lbs today. He was actually measured as a little over 6'9'' 1/2 in 1955, and played at about 225-230 lbs for most of his pro career. I think it's safe to say that to be most effective in today's game, he would gain about 15 pounds. That's a legit center size, and given his lack of a jumpshot, you have to give him a partner who's primary skill is long range shooting, and these guys are most PFs, not centers.

Why do you think you need to pair him with a long range shooter? I would rather him be with a energy guy like Plumlee or Mcgee

[Quotatious]

Why do you think you need to pair him with a long range shooter? I would rather him be with a energy guy like Plumlee or Mcgee

I would pair him with a long range shooter because such a player would complement Russell. Bill basically didn't have any kind of shooting ability, he didn't have touch (except for hook shots), so he would be limited to Dwight-like offensive game, based on power and athleticism rather than skill, and Dwight has always played best when he had a guy like Ryan Anderson, or now Terrence Jones, capable of stretching the defense. Russell was, and would still be, a vastly superior passer than Howard, so he would find them more often in good spots for a jumpshot. These guys are usually poor rebounders and defenders, so Russell/Dwight would help them tremendously in those areas.

I don't get why you would rather give him a hustler like Plumlee or McGee - Russell's hustle was actually one of his big strengths as a player, and they basically wouldn't bring anything that Russell couldn't bring.

[trex_8063]

But a lot of people seem obsessed with homogeneity and conformity.

As if the consensus gives their opinion any more validity.

The bolded part is probably closer to the truth than people wanting homogeneity or conformity. Sometimes I'm not even sure it has much to do with having their opinion validated, but rather with having their person validated. i.e. not necessarily concerned with truth (that their opinion is correct or true), but more with simply having general approval. People feel validated when others agree with them; human nature.