How do you think Russell would have done in Kareem's place?

[capfan33]

Russell would never miss the playoffs like Kareem did in 75 and 76

Lakers would not get to the Finals in 77

Lakers win championships in 78 and 79 for sure. Still can't believe people on here act like these seasons weren't massive failures for Kareem

In 76 the Lakers should have made the playoffs but the seeding format was dumb. And if you're saying that Russell would have elevated the team even more to ensure the playoffs, I definitely have doubts about that, that team was pretty terrible.

And in 78 and 79 Russell definitely fits better on those rosters but with Silk masquerading as a power forward, I still think it would have been very difficult for them to get past teams with an actual PF. And the loss of Kareem offensively would have still been enormous even though that roster was offensively oriented. Once again, I doubt Russell would've been a big enough difference-maker for them to even make the finals much less win it.

The Lakers only needed 42 wins to make the playoffs in 76 they easily get that done with Russell

The 78 and 79 Lakers had the best roster(easily) it was Kareems putrid leadership why they massively underachieved. Talent wise those teams should have won 50+ without Kareem or Russell at C

Well, 42 and a potential tiebreaker but I doubt they "easily" get it done, that roster would be lucky to win 20 games with an average center in Kareem's place, it's quite likely they didn't have a positive 2-way player on the roster outside Kareem.

And the 78 and 79 Laker's were talented no doubt, but as I already wrote they had horrible roster construction, having Dantley, Wilkes and Nixon made 0 sense. Talent is the most important but fit also definitely matters, and they didn't have it. They lost in the playoffs because Kareem was essentially playing 1on2 against opposing frontcourts. Russell definitely fits better in that role, but enough to win a title? I'm not convinced at all.

And leadership matters, but it's something that's impossible to quantify and I prefer not to assume something as ambitious as a title based on something as amorphous as "leadership" unless it's like a Rick Barry situation, which is exceedingly rare. Even though, yes, Kareem's leadership was not the greatest albeit calling it "putrid" is an exaggeration.

[rk2023]

This anti Russell shtick is super old. But hey scoring lots of points is more important than idk winning games and championships for those solely focused on hyping Wilt.

Sent from my SM-A125U using RealGM mobile app

Bumping this comment to the altitude of Mt. Everest

[penbeast0]

Dantley didn't even average 20 ppg either year and he's one of the NBA's greatest all time scorers

Dantley's rebounding was also wayyyyy down on those Laker teams

Not sure where you are getting that. Dantley's rebound rate in 78 and 79 was around 10.5. In his 15 year career, he only had 1 year signifcantly above that (11.3 in 1980) though his rate was also higher in the part of 78 that he played for Indiana (11.1), but that was less than 1000 minutes.

[penbeast0]

This anti Russell shtick is super old. But hey scoring lots of points is more important than idk winning games and championships for those solely focused on hyping Wilt.

Sent from my SM-A125U using RealGM mobile app

Bumping this comment to the altitude of Mt. Everest

The belief that scoring is the most important basketball skill is both widespread and many analysts, coaches, and players believe in it. IF you are going to counter it, you must do so with evidence and argument, not by taking cheap shots at it.

[Texas Chuck]

This anti Russell shtick is super old. But hey scoring lots of points is more important than idk winning games and championships for those solely focused on hyping Wilt.

Sent from my SM-A125U using RealGM mobile app

Bumping this comment to the altitude of Mt. Everest

The belief that scoring is the most important basketball skill is both widespread and many analysts, coaches, and players believe in it. IF you are going to counter it, you must do so with evidence and argument, not by taking cheap shots at it.

Hard disagree. I don't feel like the onus is on us to prove volume scoring doesn't actually mean all that much in and of itself. Common wisdom might be common but it isn't always wise. And with Wilt we have lots of evidence(much of which has already been posted here endless times btw) that suggests him scoring a billion points was of reductive value.

And we for sure know that what Russell was doing was all additive. It translated directly to the biggest run of winning the Association has ever seen and is likely to ever see. Even the Duncan Spurs and Curry/Draymond Warriors fell far short.

So no pointzzzzzzz isn't something I feel like I need to prove wrong. Not even for a second.

[tsherkin]

So no pointzzzzzzz isn't something I feel like I need to prove wrong. Not even for a second.

I think, to this point, we have seen what volume scoring provides. Even when it is efficient. And we know that volume scoring can do only so much. It's helpful, within a certain threshold, because it lowers the amount of offensive talent you need on the roster and all of that. But you need passing with scoring. So we see that even high-volume, super-high efficiency (like Dantley) goes only so far. Even Wilt had issues at times, though in the right offense when his mentality was on point, he was able to reduce his volume, move the ball more effectively and all that... but yeah, he specifically had to reduce his volume. And we see what single point of attack does to the predictability of an offense, and how that affects postseason offensive efficacy.

I think it's tough for people to see defense the same as they see scoring, so it's hard for them to appreciate what someone like Russell brought to the table. There's also the wild differences in league which make it difficult for people to appreciate. But Russell unquestionably captained the most dominant team in basketball history. And that their success was clearly and directly tied to what he brought to the table.

And while Russell was a boob at the line (like Wilt and Shaq) and not really a polished scorer, he did score. He had a couple of 20+ ppg postseasons, he had various big games. Through 62, he averaged 103 TS+, which is a little different than the perception people have of him looking at his FG% and FT% (especially the latter, since league FG% was different). He faded in that regard as the league matured, for sure, but he still was on point for his defensive impact and didn't force the issue as a scorer. In his time in the league, his defensive impact was outsized and more important than scoring. Between him and Red, they really rocked the pillars of heaven for the basketball community.

[capfan33]

Bumping this comment to the altitude of Mt. Everest

The belief that scoring is the most important basketball skill is both widespread and many analysts, coaches, and players believe in it. IF you are going to counter it, you must do so with evidence and argument, not by taking cheap shots at it.

Hard disagree. I don't feel like the onus is on us to prove volume scoring doesn't actually mean all that much in and of itself. Common wisdom might be common but it isn't always wise. And with Wilt we have lots of evidence(much of which has already been posted here endless times btw) that suggests him scoring a billion points was of reductive value.

And we for sure know that what Russell was doing was all additive. It translated directly to the biggest run of winning the Association has ever seen and is likely to ever see. Even the Duncan Spurs and Curry/Draymond Warriors fell far short.

So no pointzzzzzzz isn't something I feel like I need to prove wrong. Not even for a second.

I mean Wilt is a massive outlier to be fair, I don't think most people are advocating for black hole scoring in that fashion when they discuss scoring being the most important factor. There probably thinking more along the lines of taking the best scorer vs the best defender on average throughout NBA history, and then which is preferable overall. When I think of the argument for scoring being the most important, Wilt isn't close to the first name that comes to mind.