Would Bill Russell be the best player in the league ...

[ThaRegul8r]

On the other hand, you might think that with a 24 point lead in the pivotal game of the NBA finals , the clutch player is the one that erases that lead, not the one that chokes it away . . . just maybe.

Not really, no. We're talking about guys you go to in order to close out a game; I wouldn't give Russell the ball for a key basket as time wound down. That's what I meant when I was discussing "clutch"

Why is there a bias towards offense when discussing clutchness? People can't make the big defensive plays, grab the important rebounds, make the defensive stops and be clutch? What about Hakeem's block of John Starks? Was that clutch? Tayshaun Prince's block of Reggie Miller. Was that clutch? Larry Bird's steal of Isiah Thomas. What about that, was that clutch?

Defense is underappreciated and gets the shaft when discussing clutchness. Clutchness is not all offense. Sometimes a victory can hinge on making a defensive play, and those situations are no less clutch than making a shot on offense.

[NO-KG-AI]

On the other hand, you might think that with a 24 point lead in the pivotal game of the NBA finals , the clutch player is the one that erases that lead, not the one that chokes it away . . . just maybe.

Not really, no. We're talking about guys you go to in order to close out a game; I wouldn't give Russell the ball for a key basket as time wound down. That's what I meant when I was discussing "clutch"

Why is there a bias towards offense when discussing clutchness? People can't make the big defensive plays, grab the important rebounds, make the defensive stops and be clutch? What about Hakeem's block of John Starks? Was that clutch? Tayshaun Prince's block of Reggie Miller. Was that clutch? Larry Bird's steal of Isiah Thomas. What about that, was that clutch?

Defense is underappreciated and gets the shaft when discussing clutchness. Clutchness is not all offense. Sometimes a victory can hinge on making a defensive play, and those situations are no less clutch than making a shot on offense.

[TMU]

Scanning over his stats, he played 13 seasons and didn't even come close to shooting 50% from the field once. As a center back in the 1950's/60's. That's kind of ridiculous.

If he played today he would probably be a modern day Ben Wallace. They are both the same height and rebounding and defense are their strengths. Yet struggle on offense.

A modern day Dikembe Mutombo or Ben Wallace the more I think about it. Lash out all you want, but I highly doubt he would be nearly as dominant in today's NBA.

This is an awful response with no basis.

In another thread, you admitted that you don't know much about players of the old days. And based on your mere glancing of stats from the 50s/60s, I am assuming that you've never seen a single Celtics game from the 60s. No offense, but let me ask you this: How on earth did you manage to come up with the above conclusion? How can you justify who Russell resembles when you don't know much, if not anything, about the NBA in the 60s?

[TMU]

Time for more criticism....woot!

Ok, so I knew my post wouldn't be received so well :/

Granted I've never seen him live (but so hasn't 99.99% of this board), but I've watched a lot of clips of him. Just got done watching these three.....

1963 NBA Finals @Boston Celtics-LA Lakers 6th G 1st quarter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-4FFN_RO38

1963 NBA Finals @Boston Celtics-LA Lakers. 6th G 2th quarter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrsW_rHL ... re=related

1964 NBA Finals Boston - San Francisco, last 15 mins. Part
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt5bXeTT ... re=related

And if anyone wants to see more, the youtube user WiltaKansas has a good amount of stuff....
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=WiltatKansas

I didn't know that they played 6-minute quarters in the 60s. Those clips do not give a full representation of the games. Funny how each game on that site doesn't even add up to 24 minutes of basketball. I suggest you look up videos and torrents, and actually watch an entire game. At least a half, if you can.

I don't think it's a given that Russell would be the best rebounder in the league. Lets be real here...... boxing out is just PATHETIC back then. No way around that. Just watch the clips and consider that this is in the FINALS. Imagine it during a regular season game. Who's to say his rebounding would translate accordingly? Maybe, maybe not. I think he would still be a good rebounder now simply because of his physical tools though.

And he certainly would not be "decent" scorer with that repertoire, or lack thereof. If by decent you mean considerably below average then yeah.

And I also don't see this wonderful passing exhibited by Russell either. Maybe outlet passes but certainly not in the halfcourt. Are you guys watching what I am? Is it possible that because of his below average scoring ability he had to pass the ball more often than other centers and for some reason this gets interpreted as him having incredible passing abilities? I dunno.

The game has evolved. You can't simply cut out a 60s Bill Russell and glue him onto today's game.
Like I said above, watch some old games.

Also we all know (or can make an educated guess) that there is no way he win 11 titles in 13 years. Not really possible in todays league. I don't know if thats what you were implying penbeast or not...

Bottom line, imo, is the gap in his offense is too large to be overcome by his defense (and intangibles).

Again, I just don't see him being the best player in the game and most likely not even in contention.

Explain to me why the Celtics NEVER won a championship both prior to Russell's arrival and within 5-year span upon his retirement. Put any player in Russell's position, and ask yourself if that player could have won 11 championship rings in 13 years (2 championships as a player/coach).

[NO-KG-AI]

Wade3iverson, how many points do you think he would put up per game? FG%'s were lower back then, hell even Wilt shot below 50% his first few years....

So, what do you think Russell would score per game?

[thegreatblaze]

This is an awful response with no basis.

In another thread, you admitted that you don't know much about players of the old days. And based on your mere glancing of stats from the 50s/60s, I am assuming that you've never seen a single Celtics game from the 60s. No offense, but let me ask you this: How on earth did you manage to come up with the above conclusion? How can you justify who Russell resembles when you don't know much, if not anything, about the NBA in the 60s?

OK, I don't know much about the NBA of the 50's/60's, but I have seen footage of Russell, and I have heard about him before. I've heard that he was a tremendous force on defense and rebounding, but not particularly strong on offense.

So what sort of stats do you think he would put up in today's game? He was obviously much more athletic than his peers, and his lack of height wasn't as big of a deal back then. If he played today, he would be one of the shortest starting C's in the NBA, and he wouldn't have any significant advantage with his athletecism. He sure as heck wouldn't be grabbing 25 RPG, I'll tell you that. An "elite rebounder " in todays game would be around 12-14 RPG, and an "elite shotblocker" in today's game would be about 3-4 BPG. A "below average" offensive player today would be 8-10 ppg. It's not out of this world to assume he would be putting stats similar to that in today's game.

And it's not like I expect a guy with a Bill Russell avatar to not be biased.

[Wade3Iverson]

I didn't know that they played 6-minute quarters in the 60s. Those clips do not give a full representation of the games. Funny how each game on that site doesn't even add up to 24 minutes of basketball. I suggest you look up videos and torrents, and actually watch an entire game. At least a half, if you can.

Reading comprehension dude. I wrote "Just got done watching these three", meaning I watched those clips immediately before posting. I don't know if you were trying to be funny or not with "doesn't even add up..." but please stop being smarta$$. I HAVE watched more clips and game. I DO have nbatv and whenever an old game pops up I make an effort to watch it.

"if you can", eh? Nice ad hominem. Really strengthened your post.

How about YOU give me links and point out specific instances that counter my post. Seriously, I'd be willing to watch anything and learn from it.

The game has evolved. You can't simply cut out a 60s Bill Russell and glue him onto today's game.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by evolve? Do you mean that the fundamentals, mechanics and schemes todays are significantly improved (i.e. better box outs, defense, passing, offensive schemes, etc). From what I've seen I would say so.

Like I said above, watch some old games.

*yawn*

Explain to me why the Celtics NEVER won a championship both prior to Russell's arrival and within 5-year span upon his retirement. Put any player in Russell's position, and ask yourself if that player could have won 11 championship rings in 13 years (2 championships as a player/coach).

This is irrelevant. I'm simply looking at Russell and his skill set (scoring, passing, rebounding, defense,etc) and saying if he did play now he would not be regarded as the best player. Just my observations from watching him.

If you can point me to some footage that would contradict me and give me the impression that he could be the best player then I would be glad too see it.

I'm just relaying what my eyes show me.

[Wade3Iverson]

Wade3iverson, how many points do you think he would put up per game? FG%'s were lower back then, hell even Wilt shot below 50% his first few years....

So, what do you think Russell would score per game?

I know I'm going to be flamed.....

In most case I would say <10ppg tbh, unless he is in a Chandler type role just catching oops (assuming he played 35mpg).

[writerman]

This is an awful response with no basis.

So what sort of stats do you think he would put up in today's game? He was obviously much more athletic than his peers, and his lack of height wasn't as big of a deal back then. If he played today, he would be one of the shortest starting C's in the NBA, and he wouldn't have any significant advantage with his athletecism. He sure as heck wouldn't be grabbing 25 RPG, I'll tell you that. An "elite rebounder " in todays game would be around 12-14 RPG, and an "elite shotblocker" in today's game would be about 3-4 BPG. A "below average" offensive player today would be 8-10 ppg. It's not out of this world to assume he would be putting stats similar to that in today's game.

And it's not like I expect a guy with a Bill Russell avatar to not be biased.

How many times do we have to educate people here? Bill Russell was 6'9.5" or 6'10" in stocking feet. That's the way players were measured then. Today they are measured in shoes. In shoes, Bill Russell is a legit 6'11" or better, so he would not be "one of the shortest starting C's in the league." And anyone who says he was "much more athletic than his peers, " who included not only Wilt Chamberlain (who even detractors admit was an absolutely incredible athlete) but Nate Thurmond, Walt Bellamy, Wesley Unseld, Zelmo Beaty, to boot. Anyone who thinks these guys weren't as good athletes as their counterparts in the league today is delusional or seriously overrates today's crop of NBA players, because those guys would have been stars in any decade, including today.

I don't know how much he would score--although people tend to overlook that Russell, when needful, could score points--but playing today he would lead the league in rebounding and blocked shots and be in the DPOY race every year.

Imagine a taller, much more athletic, much smarter Ben Wallace with insanely great timing and reflexes--that was Bill Russell.

[KNICKS1970]

This is an awful response with no basis.

So what sort of stats do you think he would put up in today's game? He was obviously much more athletic than his peers, and his lack of height wasn't as big of a deal back then. If he played today, he would be one of the shortest starting C's in the NBA, and he wouldn't have any significant advantage with his athletecism. He sure as heck wouldn't be grabbing 25 RPG, I'll tell you that. An "elite rebounder " in todays game would be around 12-14 RPG, and an "elite shotblocker" in today's game would be about 3-4 BPG. A "below average" offensive player today would be 8-10 ppg. It's not out of this world to assume he would be putting stats similar to that in today's game.

And it's not like I expect a guy with a Bill Russell avatar to not be biased.

How many times do we have to educate people here? Bill Russell was 6'9.5" or 6'10" in stocking feet. That's the way players were measured then. Today they are measured in shoes. In shoes, Bill Russell is a legit 6'11" or better, so he would not be "one of the shortest starting C's in the league." And anyone who says he was "much more athletic than his peers, " who included not only Wilt Chamberlain (who even detractors admit was an absolutely incredible athlete) but Nate Thurmond, Walt Bellamy, Wesley Unseld, Zelmo Beaty, to boot. Anyone who thinks these guys weren't as good athletes as their counterparts in the league today is delusional or seriously overrates today's crop of NBA players, because those guys would have been stars in any decade, including today.

I don't know how much he would score--although people tend to overlook that Russell, when needful, could score points--but playing today he would lead the league in rebounding and blocked shots and be in the DPOY race every year.

Imagine a taller, much more athletic, much smarter Ben Wallace with insanely great timing and reflexes--that was Bill Russell.

I agree with you, but I think saying that Bill Russell was just as athletic as Nate Thurmond or Walt Bellamy, etc. is actually underrating how much of a freak Russell was. What separated Wilt and Russell from the rest WAS that they were more athletic than the players they played against. That's not an insult to their competition, they were tremendous athletes in their own right, but that's just a fact that, in his prime, Russell was without question much more athletic than his peers (Wilt excepted obviously). And he would be one of the best athletes in America, not just the NBA, in 2008.

Also, he wouldn't be in the DPOY race every year...because there would be no race. Russell would win it every time.

[TrueLAfan]

I think part of the problem is that we're not reading the question right.

Would Bill Russell be the best player in the league if in the league today and in his PRIME?

Bill Russell played for 13 years and was MVP 5 times. Most of the time, in his era, he wasn't the MVP. And, really, he was in his "prime" pretty much every year, too.

I find myself saying this a lot...videos of older sporting events are NOT an adequate way to judge play. They are often single camera. They are filmed at angles that seem odd to us. There's tape/video conversion problems that almost always makes players look a little slow or (most often) a little fast (and ridiculous). In terms of the NBA talking about team and help D and boxing out...think of it this way. The average NBA team in 1960 got off a shot or free throw attempt every 9.8 seconds; 40% more frequently than in 2008 (and it's faster now than it has been in a decade). Defense was generally man because there was little time to set up. Unless you take those sorts of things into account--and pretty much no one does--you're going to get a skewed version of what was actually occurring.

As to whether he'd be in the running for MVP now, I stick with my original comparison. Bill Russell is a slightly better offensive player than Dikembe Mutombo. He's a slightly better defensive player. He's a much smarter player, runs the floor better, stays on the court longer, and is an elite leader. You have to give Deke a pretty significant boost to put him at Russell's level. I figure if Deke improved that much that he'd be in the running for MVP on a regular basis. So, then, would Russell.

[kooldude]

haha TrueLAfan

how come you always use Deke as the comparison to Wilt and Russell. like if Deke was 400X better passer, super faster, much stronger with better endurance, and better shooting, that's Wilt right there.

[Wade3Iverson]

haha TrueLAfan

how come you always use Deke as the comparison to Wilt and Russell. like if Deke was 400X better passer, super faster, much stronger with better endurance, and better shooting, that's Wilt right there.

??????

When did he use the comparison for Wilt? I think you're mistaken.

[NO-KG-AI]

Wade3iverson, how many points do you think he would put up per game? FG%'s were lower back then, hell even Wilt shot below 50% his first few years....

So, what do you think Russell would score per game?

I know I'm going to be flamed.....

In most case I would say <10ppg tbh, unless he is in a Chandler type role just catching oops (assuming he played 35mpg).

That's where we will disagree, even chandler was only assisted on 60% of his shots, and he shot 60% from the floor. Russell was a lot more athletic, skilled, coordinated, and smarter than Chandler, also he is a lot more mentally tough.

They got shots up quick in the 60's, they weren't necessarily getting up the best shots, just getting up quick shots. Russell wasn't looked to for scoring, but he scored when he needed to, and he showed he was a fairly capable scorer at times (30 points and 40 rebounds in a game 7).

Russell could easily score more than a prime Deke IMO, and yes, that would make him an above average scorer for a center today.

[TrueLAfan]

haha TrueLAfan

how come you always use Deke as the comparison to Wilt and Russell. like if Deke was 400X better passer, super faster, much stronger with better endurance, and better shooting, that's Wilt right there.

I use Deke as a comparison for Wilt in his final two years and Russell overall for three reasons.

1) Deke is a four time DPOY. Wilt and Russell were considered to be the best defenders in the league in the years I look at.
2) Adjusted for pace, Wilt's 14 ppg in his final two years and Russell's career 15.1 ppg are very similar to Deke's 12.4 ppg in his first 10 years.
3) Mutombo was a top 3 rebounder in 7 of his first 10 years. He was an elite rebounder with a rebound rate of around 19.3 in his first decade of play. Wilt and Russell are elite rebounders too.

Defense, scoring, rebounding...since they are somewhat similar, it's a natural comparison. Of course, there are differences...Deke never ran the court well, was a lousy passer, etc, fouled more....but it's still a good place to start.

Not sure why you think this is funny. If I was comparing Russell to, say, Marcus Camby, that would, indeed, be a barrel of laughs.

[kooldude]

haha TrueLAfan

how come you always use Deke as the comparison to Wilt and Russell. like if Deke was 400X better passer, super faster, much stronger with better endurance, and better shooting, that's Wilt right there.

??????

When did he use the comparison for Wilt? I think you're mistaken.

He used it in other threads.