Why I believe Bill Russell would've been just as good in today's NBA

[Wigginstime]

Its hard to try and "inflate" Russell's stats in the modern NBA. For most of his career he averaged between 15 - 18 ppg on 44% shooting. This is the same league where Wilt averaged 50.4ppg on 50% shooting one season and averaged 24 ppg on 68% shooting another season.

I'm not sure how anyone convinces themselves Russell is anything more than an "average" offensive player in a modern NBA. He still may be a defensive juggernaut but the modern NBA cares far less about defense.

[SNPA]

I’m amongst the biggest Russell supporters on this site and in general.

He single-handedly revolutionized the game defensively. Defense is half the game. Do the math.

All of his accomplishments and all the new concepts he brought to the game stand. A pioneer.

I have him as GOAT. Want to beat him…win more. Win in high school, college, Olympics, NBA as player, NBA as player-coach. That’s what he did over decades. Any player to be discussed in his tier must have won at every level, must have dominated from the start to the end. Russell won the title as a rookie, he also won it his final year. In between he won 9 more times (11 total) and only lost twice. That’s not a rings argument, that’s a winning and greatness argument. Russell did not win because of his teammates, his teammates won because of him.

I’m a big fan.

But…

In the chuck and duck era his value goes down. That’s an indictment of the era, not him. But it is true.

[One_and_Done]

Who would the archetype for Russell even be? Even if he was Gobert, Gobert is not a top 10 player.

More athletic and taller Draymond Green would be a good starting place.

Draymond could (in his prime) hit a 3 passably. Draymond was also an insanely cerebral defender, and played point guard in college. I have no confidence in Russell having point guard skills, even if he 'could pass a bit', and the defenses Russell co-ordinated in his day were too simplistic for me to believe it can compare to prime Draymond's level of awareness.

[Tetlak]

There is absolutely no way bill russell is putting up 24ppg in today's nba. His career high ppg is ~19ppg in a league where the average team was scoring more than even today's scoring centric nba. And he did it on fairly low field goal percentages for his type of shot selection, and was a pretty bad FT shooter for his career. He was limited offensively and the gulf in talent between now and then is huge.

Realistically, Bill Russell in today's NBA is a rich man's Ben Wallace. An HoFer and an all time great, but not the player some people prop him up to be on here, and certainly not a legitimate GOAT contender.

Who would the archetype for Russell even be? Even if he was Gobert, Gobert is not a top 10 player.

These are pretty weak arguments. I'm not convinced.

At least present an argument that goes into depth like I did in the OP. Such as analyzing specific skills, play types, and historical/modern circumstances influenced by the style of play and rules and interpretations.

Honestly the weakest argument in this whole thread is you projecting that a guy who shot 43% from the floor , probably entirely in the restricted area, would deserve more usage today, and score with any semblance of efficiency.

[BigGargamel]

All up, I could see his offensive numbers bleeding out to something between 16-24 ppg and 6-8 apg with 55-60% FG and TS% ranging from 58-62. Add that onto 14-17 rpg, 1.5-2.0 spg, and 3-4 bpg and you've got a defensively-slanted two-way all-time great.

This is wild.

Props for putting effort and thought into your post, but this is just ludicrousness.

[dhsilv2]

Who would the archetype for Russell even be? Even if he was Gobert, Gobert is not a top 10 player.

More athletic and taller Draymond Green would be a good starting place.

Draymond could (in his prime) hit a 3 passably. Draymond was also an insanely cerebral defender, and played point guard in college. I have no confidence in Russell having point guard skills, even if he 'could pass a bit', and the defenses Russell co-ordinated in his day were too simplistic for me to believe it can compare to prime Draymond's level of awareness.

Well, then I don't think you've seen Russell enough. This is a guy who was taught to not jump on defense who went on the change basketball. Russell was an extremely sharp guy on the court. He likely shoots worse than Dray, has worse handles as well...but that's kinda expected when you start with a bigger Dray. But that's absolutely what he'd be.

[cupcakesnake]

Who would the archetype for Russell even be? Even if he was Gobert, Gobert is not a top 10 player.

What if Draymond was 4 inches taller and an elite athlete?

That's an insanely valuable player. I don't think Bill Russell is a good scorer in any generation, but he was a crafty, cerebral playmaker on offense who was very good at reading the floor. As an athlete, we have video proof that this guy was just ridiculous in terms of speed, mobility, and vertical leap.

Watch on YouTube

So modern Bill Russell would bring value as a rim threat, a passing hub, and as a terror in transition.

I don't think I need to explain why his defense would translate.

I know you're pretty dead set on the idea that any player who came before is automatically worse and therefor not discussing, but Bill Russell is a very rare basketball player and it's fun to imagine what he might look like if he was born in the year 2000.

[SweaterBae]

All up, I could see his offensive numbers bleeding out to something between 16-24 ppg and 6-8 apg with 55-60% FG and TS% ranging from 58-62. Add that onto 14-17 rpg, 1.5-2.0 spg, and 3-4 bpg and you've got a defensively-slanted two-way all-time great.

This is wild.

Props for putting effort and thought into your post, but this is just ludicrousness.

Ludicrosity.

[One_and_Done]

Who would the archetype for Russell even be? Even if he was Gobert, Gobert is not a top 10 player.

What if Draymond was 4 inches taller and an elite athlete?

That's an insanely valuable player. I don't think Bill Russell is a good scorer in any generation, but he was a crafty, cerebral playmaker on offense who was very good at reading the floor. As an athlete, we have video proof that this guy was just ridiculous in terms of speed, mobility, and vertical leap.

Watch on YouTube

So modern Bill Russell would bring value as a rim threat, a passing hub, and as a terror in transition.

I don't think I need to explain why his defense would translate.

I know you're pretty dead set on the idea that any player who came before is automatically worse and therefor not discussing, but Bill Russell is a very rare basketball player and it's fun to imagine what he might look like if he was born in the year 2000.

That Russell dunk has been shared so much, that I think people have lost sight of what it shows. There is nothing in that video that any number of athletic roll men in today's NBA couldn't do. Russell isn't Frank Weissing a 7 footer, he's not even jumping over that (very short) guy. Russell jumps beside him.

I have no problem saying Russell could play today. He was clearly an athletic outlier for his time. This talk of being a hybrid Duncan or having the passing and shooting of Draymond, is a bit silly though. It's like all the exaggerated stories about Wilt. Modern basketball is so much more sophisticated, the idea we can just assume Russell's basic defensive awareness translates today doesn't hold water.

But even if we granted all that, his lack of offense condemns him to a reduced impact. Even if he's Rudy Gobert, he's not a top 10 player in today's game.

[SweaterBae]

Who would the archetype for Russell even be? Even if he was Gobert, Gobert is not a top 10 player.

What if Draymond was 4 inches taller and an elite athlete?

That's an insanely valuable player. I don't think Bill Russell is a good scorer in any generation, but he was a crafty, cerebral playmaker on offense who was very good at reading the floor. As an athlete, we have video proof that this guy was just ridiculous in terms of speed, mobility, and vertical leap.

Watch on YouTube

So modern Bill Russell would bring value as a rim threat, a passing hub, and as a terror in transition.

I don't think I need to explain why his defense would translate.

I know you're pretty dead set on the idea that any player who came before is automatically worse and therefor not discussing, but Bill Russell is a very rare basketball player and it's fun to imagine what he might look like if he was born in the year 2000.

So why did he shoot 43% from the floor?

[Hoop Hunter]

My position is as always.

If you transport bill russell as a 6 month baby and he was born 20 years ago, he would be just as good, if not even much better. He would train himself to today's game and have all the benefits of things like improved FT shooting trainers and regimen's.

If you took 26 year old bill russell and teleported him into today's game, he maybe would not be as good because he never developed those skills necessary for today's game, but you make good points that he still would be.

I mean the same but the reverse is true for sending current players to the past. if you sent them as 6 month old baby and transported them to 1934, they would not be as good as they are today. Michael Jordan might not be the goat if you took him as a 6 month old baby and he was born in 1934.

IMO, This a good way to look at the different era's players.

Jordan with a killer 3 would be insane. I believe he would be, if he had needed to be. If he grew up in era where the 3 was so important.

[Doctor MJ]

stuff I appreciate

I'm mostly with you here. I think anyone dismissing Russell as simply a physical talent relative to his own era is underrating him. I do think he's the best defensive talent we've ever seen (unless Wemby comes and changes my mind).

But:

1. They've changed the rules to make what Russell did on defense less devastating. He'd still be good as they come, but I don't believe could impact the game as much in that way.

2. Said rules also helped offensive stars, who are now capable of more impact on that side of the ball than was possible in the past.

3. We shouldn't give Russell too much benefit of the doubt when it comes to improving his shooting. While it's absolutely true that he could have put up bigger numbers had he played on a team looking to use him as a scorer, Russell himself was quite clear that he simply did not have the shooting touch that people with a knack do, and this related to why in high school he wasn't a star, and why he ended up focusing more on defense.

[Doctor MJ]

Who would the archetype for Russell even be? Even if he was Gobert, Gobert is not a top 10 player.

What if Draymond was 4 inches taller and an elite athlete?

That's an insanely valuable player. I don't think Bill Russell is a good scorer in any generation, but he was a crafty, cerebral playmaker on offense who was very good at reading the floor. As an athlete, we have video proof that this guy was just ridiculous in terms of speed, mobility, and vertical leap.

Watch on YouTube

So modern Bill Russell would bring value as a rim threat, a passing hub, and as a terror in transition.

I don't think I need to explain why his defense would translate.

I know you're pretty dead set on the idea that any player who came before is automatically worse and therefor not discussing, but Bill Russell is a very rare basketball player and it's fun to imagine what he might look like if he was born in the year 2000.

So why did he shoot 43% from the floor?

Those who have done analysis of shot charts from the deep past seem to indicate that players haven't actually gotten better at hitting traditional types of shots, but that they've become able to focus their shot taking at better places to shoot - by the rim, or at the 3.

And why are guys better at getting to the rim today? Mostly about changes to officiating. Used to be that they called the foul on the person initiating the contact, now they mostly just call fouls on defenders if the offensive player seems like that's what he wants (though shout out to something of a return to normalcy the latter have of last season).

So yeah, I would say that this is the answer to these type of questions with the caveat that there's also a cultural component. In college, KC Jones was throwing alley-oops to Bill Russell in an offense that led Russell to break the NCAA tournament scoring record. In the NBA, that's just not how the Celtics played, and it makes you wonder what might have been.

Now mind you, wouldn't surprise me at all if refs blew the whistle on dunker if he so much as breathed on the defender when he did this, but we can't say we really know how far the Celtics could have taken this, because that wasn't their strategy. They had an offense built around Bob Cousy and they were going to stick with that no matter how many shots he missed, and it wouldn't matter because the Russell-led defense was just too dominant.

[SNPA]

I disagree with the Dray and Gilbert comps.

I have it as Duncan is Russell with the athleticism slightly dialed down, and thus defense slightly lowered, but with greater offensive skill.

[Black Jack]

Who would the archetype for Russell even be? Even if he was Gobert, Gobert is not a top 10 player.

I think KG basically.

[FrodoBaggins]

Russell was a bit shorter than Giannis with a slightly longer wingspan. Similar athletic profile.

Imagine a player with Giannis' physical abilities, laser focused on making his teammates better on offense, and playing maximum-effort defense on every possession. The most unselfish superstar in NBA history.

That's a high impact player in any era.

There are definitely similarities but also some differences. Mainly in the air as a paint protector and rebounder on defense and as a finisher and rebounder on offense. Due to anthropometry and athleticism.

For starters, Russell's standing reach was several inches greater than Giannis'. We're talking about 3-5 inches difference. I don't think people realize how ridiculous Bill's reach was. It was greater than 7'3" Swede Halbrook's, 7'2" Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's, and 7'4" (more like 7'1.5" to 7'2") Ralph Sampson's. It's similar to Deandre Jordan's, Javale McGee's, Rudy Gobert's, and Wilt Chamberlain's. Only Nate Thurmond had him covered for standing reach.

'Rumor has it that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, who was 7 feet 2 inches without shoes, and over 7 foot 3 with shoes, once stood next to Bill Russell, holding a basketball. He then looked at Bill and said, "Hey, can you touch the ball without standing on your toes?" He then held the ball as high up above his head as he could, asking Bill to try to touch the ball without standing on his toes, and which point Bill walked over, and standing completely flatfooted, stretched on of his arms up as high as he could... and placed the palm of his hand over the TOP of the basketball (which Kareem's hand was underneath).'

'Russell has only a 7'4" wingspan. As for his standing reach, its undetermined. There was however this 7'3" white dude named Swede Halbrook from Oregon and in a photo-op before jumpball in an NCAA regional finals, he raised the ball as high as he could but Russell was still able to place his hands on top of the ball Swede was holding up.

A lot of coaches foremost among them is Red Auerbach maintains that a basketball player's true height is not from his feet to the top of his head but rather from his feet to the tip of his upstretched arms.

For a more extreme example consider the Logo, Jerry West. Standing only 6'3", West had the same sleeve length as 7'1" Wilt Chamberlain. Wingspans are usually the same as a player's height and West's wingspan exceeded his height by nine to ten inches.'

His listed wingspan of 7'4" (which wasn't specified down to the decimal) understates his reach because of his narrow clavicles. Bill's hand length was confirmed to be 10.5" long thanks to research done in the book The Rivalry: Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and the Golden Age of Basketball by John Taylor.

For comparison, Giannis has 9.8" long hands. Wilt's were 9.5" long. Only Shaq (11") has longer hands. And probably Boban, Manute, and some of the NBA giants.






Secondly, there's a notable difference in jumping ability. Both in height and quickness. Giannis' max reach (standing reach + max vertical jump) was measured as 12'2". That was 2015, so he may have added an inch or two to it. But he's never struck me as skying as high as Dwight (12'6").

Bill was reported to have touched the top of the backboard, which is 13 feet. With his standing reach, he only needed a vertical leap a few inches near 40". Did he? IMO, it's possible. It's not the mythical feat it once was because we have two guys who've done it on camera: Doug Thomas and Kaodirichi Akobundu-Ehiogu.

Bill was an Olympic-level quality high jumper who could've medalled at the Olympics. And this was pre-Fosbury, so it had more to do with raw jumping ability and less about technique.

In 56 I could have made the Olympics in high jump but turned it down to play basketball instead we could only play one sport then. Track and Field News ranked me #7 high jumper in the world, I was ranked #2 in the US @ the time.

Read on Twitter

?lang=en

One of his highest jumps occurred at the WCR, where he achieved a mark of 6 feet 9+1⁄4 inches (2.06 m); at the meet, Russell tied Charlie Dumas, who would later in the year win gold in the 1956 Summer Olympics in Melbourne, Australia for the United States and become the first person to high-jump 7 feet (2.13 m).

Whether or not he could reach 13 feet I have no doubt he was touching in the high 12' range. 12'8" to 13' seems reasonable. Which gives him a sizeable aerial advantage over Giannis. And that's just jumping height; Russell was the quickest leaper ever. Lightning quick off the ground and he could pogo-stick his second, third, fourth, and fifth jumps as well as the first.

The reasons listed help explain why Bill's estimated BLK% is more than twice Giannis' and comparable to David Robinson, Hakeem Olajuwon, and Mark Eaton.

[FrodoBaggins]

Bill Russell's disproportionate standing reach truly was one of the freakiest in NBA history. On par with other freaks of nature, like Tim Duncan, Kevin McHale, Nate Thurmond, and Mark Williams (drafted 2022). 6'9.5" to 6'10" barefoot height but with that reach he's more like a 7'2" guy. And that's not even considering the jumping ability... Once you factor in these things it starts to make sense how he was so dominant.

[One_and_Done]

Who would the archetype for Russell even be? Even if he was Gobert, Gobert is not a top 10 player.

I think KG basically.

KG without his offensive game is not a top 20 all-time guy.

[theonlyclutch]

To say that Russell can even begin to replicate Draymond/Giannis roles on offense must have not watched much of what Draymond/Giannis do in terms of handling the ball, especially through traffic. And needless to say, somebody who shot 44% FG, mostly in the paint with a big athletic advantage over his 1960s peers almost certainly does not have the 'touch' to become a high-efficency scorer today.

[FarBeyondDriven]

The guy is overrated. He was great in his day because he was physically and athletically dominant. He couldn't be bothered to put in the work to learn to shoot. There was nothing in his day preventing this. He had zero scoring acumen. No post moves, no jumper and couldn't hit FTs. So it doesn't matter that the rules are different now. He'd basically be a better version of Claxton if he played today. His impact on winning was due to being on the most talented teams in a shallow league. Refs and media hated Wilt because he was a flashy black man otherwise Wilt would have won more MVPs and championships.