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

[FrodoBaggins]

Yes, the modern style of play with the three-point shot and rules would suppress his defensive impact in absolute terms. But I also feel that he'd be a better offensive player today because the rules and style of play in his day suppressed his offensive strengths. These skills primarily being his pick-and-roll finishing, ball handling, and playmaking.

I think his improvements in offense offset his defense being nerfed.

And don't get me wrong, he'd still be GOAT-level on defense. If Rudy Gobert and Kevin Garnett can have modern seasons (2004-05 onward) of defensive RAPM and defensive one-number metrics in that +5 to +7 per 100 possession range, Bill can too. Maybe even a little bit more because he had it all: no weaknesses, shot-blocking like Hakeem/D-Rob, and defensive rebounding like Rodman. Here's a great breakdown of his defense from the poster Dipper 13, who tracked hundreds of Bill Russell possessions:

Spoiler:

His ability to block/alter shots AND clean the defensive boards. Based on the available (limited) video footage, he was 7% in shot blocking percentage and roughly 36% in defensive rebounding percentage. To be that dominant in either one of those areas is something, but to be that dominant in both? Keep in mind how shot blocking tends to take you out of proper rebounding position. Below are the career leaders for block percentage and defensive rebounding percentage. To think Russell might be near or at the top on both of these lists is amazing.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/blk_pct_career.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/drb_pct_career.html


He was basically rebounding the defensive glass like Rodman and blocking shots like Hakeem/Robinson. You talk about a guy who not only doesn't have a defensive weakness, but is so dominant at virtually every area on that side, that is Bill Russell.

1966 Celtics defensive highlights -

Watch on YouTube

;t=36m47s



Plus he may the be the best at keeping his hands up on defense, even after jumping. This is something you rarely see with contemporary big men. Below we can see how Russell keeps his arms up when defending after a fake, both in a practice drill and in playoff competition vs. Willis Reed. Have we ever seen such a fundamentally sound defensive player since?

Watch on YouTube

;t=2m32s

Watch on YouTube

;t=17m44s



Russell also had the best reflexes of any player ever at any position and a unique shot blocking style where he used his wrist to deflect shots rather than swat it out of bounds. Very seldom have we seen other big men do this with the same consistency.

Watch on YouTube

;t=12m55s

Some might think a 7% block percentage and 36% defensive rebounding percentage at the same time isn't possible but Rudy Gobert has been close. 2020-21: 7% BLK and 33.5% DRB; 2021-22: 5.7% BLK and 36.3% DRB. Combined, that's 6.4% BLK and 34.9% DRB. Ben Wallace and Dwight Howard have some seasons/playoff runs that are relatively close.

And as for Bill's offense? I think +2 to +4 per 100 possession kind of impact is possible. Imagine a prime Deandre Jordan roll-man game with 200-250+ dunks per season, plus the ball handling and playmaking of guys like Draymond Green, Joakim Noah, Giannis Antetokoumpo, and Domantas Sabonis.

11-13 highly efficient roll-man points from PnR finishes, cuts, post-up seals, and offensive rebounds. The added dynamics of the ball handling and passing open up alternative creation pathways in transition and in the short roll and hand-off actions.

But the big swing skill would be face-up slashing in the half-court setting. In isolation and as a PnR ball handler. Think Giannis. Most players need a perimeter shot to make this work but when you're a big man and have a freakish combination of size, athleticism, and ball handling, you can be an exception. You can force the issue and get to the rim. Today's three-point shooting, spaced-out defense style of play, and dribbling, carrying, and traveling rules have made that far easier to accomplish.

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.

I even think there's an argument his free-throw shooting could improve a little due to equipment advancements. Standardized rims, backboards, controlled arena temperature, and a game ball with eight panels and better grip. Fun fact: league-wide FT% went up when they switched to the eight-panel ball. I'll give Russ 60% FT at best. He shot 56.8% FT across his career. 77.8 FT+. Adjusted for today's league average free-throw shooting (78.4) that's 60.9% FT.

[One_and_Done]

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

[MrBigShot]

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.

[FrodoBaggins]

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.

[One_and_Done]

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.

You need a prototype for success to impact winning in this league.

[bkkrh]

From what we know and can watch as far as it is recorded, Bill Russel was a very athletic and fast player with high basketball IQ on the offensive and defensive side. He was multiple seasons in the top 10 for assists per game, even is FG shooting average is not really that bad if you consider the league's standards at that time.

The one thing that often gets kind of ignored is that players would of course not play the exact same way today as they did in the 50s, 60s and so on. Like Jerry West would of course shoot 3 pointers if he would play today and not step into the line because there were only 2 points per basket when he played. Or a LeBron might also play a lot more physical in the 90s. So the only question is really if the strengths of a player only work in a certain era or can be adapted to other eras as well.

In Bill Russell's case the league actually changed a lot during the time he entered in 57 until his retirement. There were constantly players entering the league with a playstyle or skillset that was totally different or way above to what existed at this point in the NBA. Players like Wilt, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Rick Barry. Players that made NBA 1st team and lead the league in scoring, assists or rebounding in their first year. Still, Bill Russell constantly performed on the same level year for year, was 1st or 2nd in MVP voting and the Celtics won a title at the end.

So based on that I'm sure he'd also adapt to the modern play and figure out a way to be effective on the defensive end. I highly doubt that he would still be a MVP candidate, mostly because defensive is just less valued in general. I see him more as an improved and more athletic version of a peak Joaquim Noah. A guy that wins a few defensive player of the years, regularly makes the defensive teams and is always a good bet to make the All NBA 2nd or 3rd team.

[Edrees]

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.

[wegotthabeet]

He’s probably the best defensive player ever so of course he’d be great in any era.

[FrodoBaggins]

From what we know and can watch as far as it is recorded, Bill Russel was a very athletic and fast player with high basketball IQ on the offensive and defensive side. He was multiple seasons in the top 10 for assists per game, even is FG shooting average is not really that bad if you consider the league's standards at that time.

Absolutely. It's also worth mentioning he was routinely at the top of the league in FG% early in his career when he played closer to the basket. Red Auerbach then moved him out to the high post to function as a passer which coincided with his drop in efficiency.

The one thing that often gets kind of ignored is that players would of course not play the exact same way today as they did in the 50s, 60s and so on. Like Jerry West would of course shoot 3 pointers if he would play today and not step into the line because there were only 2 points per basket when he played. Or a LeBron might also play a lot more physical in the 90s. So the only question is really if the strengths of a player only work in a certain era or can be adapted to other eras as well.

In Bill Russell's case the league actually changed a lot during the time he entered in 57 until his retirement. There were constantly players entering the league with a playstyle or skillset that was totally different or way above to what existed at this point in the NBA. Players like Wilt, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Rick Barry. Players that made NBA 1st team and lead the league in scoring, assists or rebounding in their first year. Still, Bill Russell constantly performed on the same level year for year, was 1st or 2nd in MVP voting and the Celtics won a title at the end.

So based on that I'm sure he'd also adapt to the modern play and figure out a way to be effective on the defensive end. I highly doubt that he would still be a MVP candidate, mostly because defensive is just less valued in general. I see him more as an improved and more athletic version of a peak Joaquim Noah. A guy that wins a few defensive player of the years, regularly makes the defensive teams and is always a good bet to make the All NBA 2nd or 3rd team.

I appreciate that you've actually presented a respectable argument. Kudos.

That being said, I think you're sleeping on the value of his defense - even with the modern nerf. Kevin Garnett and Rudy Gobert have shown how impactful an individual's defense can still be. In my opinion, alone that level of defense can be worthy of an MVP. Even with a comparatively offensively middling impact.

2020-21 Rudy's impact was MVP-level in my opinion. Worthy of winning MVP in the right year. But they'd never give the MVP to a player of that archetype. They'd give an MVP to an offensive one-way player like Nash or Harden but I can't see them doing it for a defensive equivalent. Because defense is harder to see. Not like offense, which can be summarized by looking at a box score per game averages.

And I like the upgraded Joakim Noah comparison. But I'll say that Bill was functionally much bigger with regards to wingspan, arm length, and standing reach most especially. And athletically, his jumping ability, strength, speed, and power were on another level. Just a different level of playing above the rim. He'd be finishing plays like Deandre Jordan in his prime - a lob-catching dunk machine.

Joakim was a great athlete. Fantastic agility and lateral movement. But Bill is on another level; an Olympic-level jumper with very impressive track times. The most immediate comparisons athletically are Hakeem, D-Rob, and Giannis. With modern strength and conditioning he'd be in that 245-265 range. He was 215-240 pounds in his day.

That difference in physical size and athletic ability allow him to do things that I think are beyond your offensive projection.

[FrodoBaggins]

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.

I try to avoid all the time-travel stuff. It just overcomplicates things.

Bill Russell had all the tools to succeed in today's NBA. Anthropometry, athleticism, and sport-specific basketball skill. They shot the ball, passed it, and moved back then; there were set plays, motion offenses, and transition fast breaks. It only looks exceedingly rudimentary because of the limitations of the rules. Officiate today's game with those standards and watch as a record number of travels, carries, and offensive fouls are called.

I just don't think the modern game is super advanced and complex that players from the past would be in any way befuddled. The basic principles are rather simple, as they've always been. Most of the modern multi-screening and hand-off actions existed in the '40s, '50s, and '60s. They just involve a three-point line now.

I keep the exercise simple. Adjust for modern strength and conditioning, equipment, technology, and playing conditions, and rules, interpretations, and style of play.

[bkkrh]

From what we know and can watch as far as it is recorded, Bill Russel was a very athletic and fast player with high basketball IQ on the offensive and defensive side. He was multiple seasons in the top 10 for assists per game, even is FG shooting average is not really that bad if you consider the league's standards at that time.

Absolutely. It's also worth mentioning he was routinely at the top of the league in FG% early in his career when he played closer to the basket. Red Auerbach then moved him out to the high post to function as a passer which coincided with his drop in efficiency.

The one thing that often gets kind of ignored is that players would of course not play the exact same way today as they did in the 50s, 60s and so on. Like Jerry West would of course shoot 3 pointers if he would play today and not step into the line because there were only 2 points per basket when he played. Or a LeBron might also play a lot more physical in the 90s. So the only question is really if the strengths of a player only work in a certain era or can be adapted to other eras as well.

In Bill Russell's case the league actually changed a lot during the time he entered in 57 until his retirement. There were constantly players entering the league with a playstyle or skillset that was totally different or way above to what existed at this point in the NBA. Players like Wilt, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Rick Barry. Players that made NBA 1st team and lead the league in scoring, assists or rebounding in their first year. Still, Bill Russell constantly performed on the same level year for year, was 1st or 2nd in MVP voting and the Celtics won a title at the end.

So based on that I'm sure he'd also adapt to the modern play and figure out a way to be effective on the defensive end. I highly doubt that he would still be a MVP candidate, mostly because defensive is just less valued in general. I see him more as an improved and more athletic version of a peak Joaquim Noah. A guy that wins a few defensive player of the years, regularly makes the defensive teams and is always a good bet to make the All NBA 2nd or 3rd team.

I appreciate that you've actually presented a respectable argument. Kudos.

That being said, I think you're sleeping on the value of his defense - even with the modern nerf. Kevin Garnett and Rudy Gobert have shown how impactful an individual's defense can still be. In my opinion, alone that level of defense can be worthy of an MVP. Even with a comparatively offensively middling impact.

2020-21 Rudy's impact was MVP-level in my opinion. Worthy of winning MVP in the right year. But they'd never give the MVP to a player of that archetype. They'd give an MVP to an offensive one-way player like Nash or Harden but I can't see them doing it for a defensive equivalent. Because defense is harder to see. Not like offense, which can be summarized by looking at a box score per game averages.

And I like the upgraded Joakim Noah comparison. But I'll say that Bill was functionally much bigger with regards to wingspan, arm length, and standing reach most especially. And athletically, his jumping ability, strength, speed, and power were on another level. Just a different level of playing above the rim. He'd be finishing plays like Deandre Jordan in his prime - a lob-catching dunk machine.

Joakim was a great athlete. Fantastic agility and lateral movement. But Bill is on another level; an Olympic-level jumper with very impressive track times. The most immediate comparisons athletically are Hakeem, D-Rob, and Giannis. With modern strength and conditioning he'd be in that 245-265 range. He was 215-240 pounds in his day.

That difference in physical size and athletic ability allow him to do things that I think are beyond your offensive projection.

Yes we generally agree there. I meant he would not be a MVP candidate similar to how Ben Wallace, or Mutombo, or Gobert barely got any votes on that end. Dwight came in 2nd once and that season he averaged a career high of 23 points. I just don't think Russell would get the full recognition of the actual voters. Like I don't see people voting for him over Jokic or Embiid from a position perspective. Only thing that might change that could be the Block & Steal averages that we don't have (only the stories). So if you have him leading the league with some outlandish rebound and block numbers, while also having is peak averages of around 5 assists and 16-18 points and his team being in 1st place he might get an MVP, but in a season like last one I'd still feel that a lot of voters would value Jokic's, Luka's and SGA's numbers more.

The Noah comparsion was mostly related to the Defensive Anchor/Playmaker combination, can't really think of any other example than those 2 atm. As mentioned, I see Russell as well as way more athletic and mobile.

[bledredwine]

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

A Ben Wallace and Tim Duncan hybrid on crack (defensively), with better assisting and none of the scoring.

That's my guess.

[ryan in Maine]

I think he'd be Tim Duncan with the ability to play passing lanes and lead the break. Right?

[One_and_Done]

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

A Ben Wallace and Tim Duncan hybrid on crack (defensively), with better assisting and none of the scoring.

That's my guess.

He can't be a Tim Duncan hybrid with no offensive game.

[Jabroni Lames]

Russell looks a lot like Giannis here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/s/wF6bI8yRus

[FrodoBaggins]

At absolute worst with nothing but his size and athleticism, Bill would be doing stuff like this on offense:

At 6'11" in shoes, 250-265 pounds, a 9'5" to 9'7" standing reach, and a 40"+ vertical, he'd be killing fools in the air.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

;pp=ygUdcnVkeSBnb2JlcnQgZHVuayBjb21waWxhdGlvbiA%3D

[shotsquatch]

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.

[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.

[ellobo]

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.

You need a prototype for success to impact winning in this league.

But Bill Russell had arguably the biggest impact on winning in the history of basketball and unarguably the best winning record of any player. However, he did not have a prototype or archetype before or in his time, and has never served as a prototype for anyone else. Bill Russell once said, "The way I play, my team wins," and he was in a unique position to be able to say that and have the record to back it up.

That's why it's so hard to project him into other eras or even to evaluate him relative to his own era. His attributes and stats were not unique, but his results were.

[1993Playoffs]

Respect to Him.

But he wouldn’t be a GOAT candidate in pretty much any post 70s era