How would you use Bill Russell on both ends of the floor today?

[dygaction]

Offensive end, feels like he would be Dwight Powell on steroids with better passing ability.

Simply, you're saying Yannis.

Giannis is a ~30ppg scorer and Dwight is around 10…

[feyki]

Offensive end, feels like he would be Dwight Powell on steroids with better passing ability.

Simply, you're saying Yannis.

Giannis is a ~30ppg scorer and Dwight is around 10…

There are 20 Points and 20 Offensive rating differences per 100.

[dygaction]

Simply, you're saying Yannis.

Giannis is a ~30ppg scorer and Dwight is around 10…

There are 20 Points and 20 Offensive rating differences per 100.

Yes, but on steriods only mean jumps higher, stronger and setting better screens, not suddenly can dribble, shoot, or post up. A player cannot change from an 18ppg player in an ear when 5 other players could score >30ppg (one being 50) to the best scorer in the modern era.

[feyki]

Giannis is a ~30ppg scorer and Dwight is around 10…

There are 20 Points and 20 Offensive rating differences per 100.

Yes, but on steriods only mean jumps higher, stronger and setting better screens, not suddenly can dribble, shoot, or post up. A player cannot change from an 18ppg player in an ear when 5 other players could score >30ppg (one being 50) to the best scorer in the modern era.

I probably prefer 20 with %70 TS player over 30 with %60. But it also depends on the creation, should we assume better playmaking also on his own shot creation? If yes, yea I would say similar to Yannis. If it's just like Draymond's creation, okay probably a tier below, but still an above average offensive force.

[70sFan]

Giannis is a ~30ppg scorer and Dwight is around 10…

There are 20 Points and 20 Offensive rating differences per 100.

Yes, but on steriods only mean jumps higher, stronger and setting better screens, not suddenly can dribble, shoot, or post up. A player cannot change from an 18ppg player in an ear when 5 other players could score >30ppg (one being 50) to the best scorer in the modern era.

Russell could dribble and post up though. I don't see him as Giannis level offensively in any era (not even close), but he had some skills.

[Joao Saraiva]

I would use him Gobert style. And he's an upgrade on both ends.

No post up. That type of play doesn't produce a ton of points per possession, and while he had some skill in that regard I don't wanna run that.

[Mazter]

I think a 10-12 ppg scorer at best. He might benefit off ball from the space in the paint to boost his efficiency. He could add a 10-15 rpg.
His defensive impact was and would still be undeniable today. I mean, the Celtics were a +1.4. They did improved to an estimated -1.6 when Russell was at the Olympics, but then exploded to about -5.9 after his debut. I think an All Defensive first throughout his career and anywhere between 5-10 DPOY's.

[dygaction]

There are 20 Points and 20 Offensive rating differences per 100.

Yes, but on steriods only mean jumps higher, stronger and setting better screens, not suddenly can dribble, shoot, or post up. A player cannot change from an 18ppg player in an ear when 5 other players could score >30ppg (one being 50) to the best scorer in the modern era.

Russell could dribble and post up though. I don't see him as Giannis level offensively in any era (not even close), but he had some skills.

I would not want him to dribble or post up in today's game though. Russell's peak TS% was .50 in 67 and Wilt had it at .64. Pick & roll, score via offensive rebounding, and ally ops should be the main methods. Doing the three at elite level should make him an efficient 15-20ppg player with the right running mate.

[Mazter]

I would not want him to dribble or post up in today's game though. Russell's peak TS% was .50 in 67 and Wilt had it at .64. Pick & roll, score via offensive rebounding, and ally ops should be the main methods. Doing the three at elite level should make him an efficient 15-20ppg player with the right running mate.

Jarett Allen leads the league in points via paint touches with 12.1 and he is a 70% Ft shooter. 15-20 ppg is kinda optimistic, far from realistic to be honest.

[70sFan]

Yes, but on steriods only mean jumps higher, stronger and setting better screens, not suddenly can dribble, shoot, or post up. A player cannot change from an 18ppg player in an ear when 5 other players could score >30ppg (one being 50) to the best scorer in the modern era.

Russell could dribble and post up though. I don't see him as Giannis level offensively in any era (not even close), but he had some skills.

I would not want him to dribble or post up in today's game though. Russell's peak TS% was .50 in 67 and Wilt had it at .64. Pick & roll, score via offensive rebounding, and ally ops should be the main methods. Doing the three at elite level should make him an efficient 15-20ppg player with the right running mate.

As Matzer said, it's not possible to score 20 ppg only via garbage points.

I wouldn't use Russell as a post player either, but I'd definitely want him to use his dribbling game. He was very dangerous faceup scorer, even with stricter rules.

[dygaction]

I would not want him to dribble or post up in today's game though. Russell's peak TS% was .50 in 67 and Wilt had it at .64. Pick & roll, score via offensive rebounding, and ally ops should be the main methods. Doing the three at elite level should make him an efficient 15-20ppg player with the right running mate.

Jarett Allen leads the league in points via paint touches with 12.1 and he is a 70% Ft shooter. 15-20 ppg is kinda optimistic, far from realistic to be hones.

Capela also had 15.2ppg last season with Trae and a 16.3ppg season with Harden. Allen had to share with two other 7 footers. Also I can see Russell being better than Allen.

[Mazter]

Capela also had 15.2ppg last season with Trae and a 16.3ppg season with Harden. Allen had to share with two other 7 footers. Also I can see Russell being better than Allen.

Well, while doing so Capela nor Allen did have a tenth of the defensive impact I expect Russell to have. Leaving much more energy on offense. 15-16 is about max a paint scorer will have once in a while, 19-20 I don't think so, especially if full focussing on defense.

Besides that, 12+ from paint touches is like 30+ all scoring, it happens once in a while. Just assuming Russell would do it is a bit overestimating Bill's offense.

[Jaqua92]

As a coach or bench player.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[70sFan]

As a coach or bench player.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

There is no NBA team on which prime Russell wouldn't start.

[TrueLAfan]

A couple of things—I’m of the opinion that the three would help, not hurt, Russell on D. We are talking about someone who would fairly frequently leave his man in the post, leap out to challenge wings shooting 20 footers, and have the quicks to get back in. Today, those low post players are often mid-post or on perimeter already. It’s generally thought/believed/said that Russell got about 6-8 blocks a game. Today, there are (a lot) fewer interior shots taken; I’d imagine Russell’s shot blocking would go down by 50%. But I think his steal numbers would be good; more than that. Terrifyingly good. Imagine if Draymond was, say, four inches taller with three inches more wingspan, and quicker. Draymond averaged close to 2 steals per 36. I think Russell would be markedly higher. I think his block percentage would be around 8.5 and his steal percentage would be around 3.5. He’s be getting around 3 to 4 blocks and 2.5 to 3 steals a game. Only one player has a 200 block/200 steal season: Hakeem. I think Russell would get there pretty much every year he played 90% of his team’s games and played 36-39 mpg. Bill Russell was never a physically intimidating C; he scared opponents because of speed and footwork (see Noah in his best year and, again, Hakeem.). That would make him more valuable defending spread offenses now. I’d still play him at C and PF, knowing he’d be outside a lot more and could switch off quickly and challenge the PFs that are now out there, and make life miserable in the passing lanes.


Interestingly, Hakeem and Russell are very similar physically as well. But Russell came into the league as a better, smarter defensive player than Hakeem. By the time Hakeem’s smarts got to an elite level on that end, his athleticism had slightly declined, and continued to do so. And I think the same would happen with Russell—but I think that’s your comparison. Take Hakeem’s 2-3 best years. Russell would be slightly better than that, for more like 7 or 8 years, and would have a similar decline in his last 5 or 6 years. His defensive impact would be astronomical; far better than Draymond or Gobert, better than peak KG. My God, he’d be amazing.

The offensive question is more of a “what if” and that’s where you’ll get separation in terms of what people feel Russell’s overall impact would be. I personally think the same think that would make him more valuable on D would help him a bit on offense as well. Russell played low post on offense, or at least got the ball there often on offense, and it was a crowded time in the key back then. Not so much now. I’d keep him mid or low post, and have him move down low off the dribble or off PnRs. I mean, I’m a Clipper fan. Is Ivica Zubac going to be quick enough to stay with Russell? No. And on our team, if Zu or Hart can’t guard you, we do what most teams do—go small ball. Is Marcus Morris or Nick Batum going to stop Russell? They’re still not as quick—and they’re giving up size and length. And, unlike the 60s, there aren’t many PFs and SFs in the key trying to shoot or get rebounds. They’re mid key or perimeter players. There’s much less of a second line of help defenders nearby in the paint. And that means when you beat your guy down low, it’s more definitive in terms of having an open look or good shot. IMO, Russell wouldn’t shoot (as) much, but the lack of other defenders in the key would let him shoot around 50%. Figure 11 shots in 38 minutes; That’s 11 points. He wouldn’t go the line as much either—maybe 3.5 to 4 times a game. And 2 to 2.5 points more. That’s around 13-14 points a game. It’s not like his passing would suffer with more open passing lanes; 4 assists is conservative, but what the hey. So 13 and 4 and around 12.5 boards in 38 mpg (that’s about a 10-15% drop in his rebound percentage, from playing out of the low post more in a modern game). And, yeah, add 300 blocks and 210 steals in the 75 games he plays.

It’s like an old TV commercial: “Now how much would you pay?” And the answer is a lot. The max. Because a player like that, with his defensive skills and moderate to low usage and adequate offense, works in almost every team scenario. It’s the type of player that would make any team better—most of them a lot better. And that makes sense, because that’s exactly what Bill Russell did.

Sorry for the long post.

[falcolombardi]

A couple of things—I’m of the opinion that the three would help, not hurt, Russell on D. We are talking about someone who would fairly frequently leave his man in the post, leap out to challenge wings shooting 20 footers, and have the quicks to get back in. Today, those low post players are often mid-post or on perimeter already. It’s generally thought/believed/said that Russell got about 6-8 blocks a game. Today, there are (a lot) fewer interior shots taken; I’d imagine Russell’s shot blocking would go down by 50%. But I think his steal numbers would be good; more than that. Terrifyingly good. Imagine if Draymond was, say, four inches taller with three inches more wingspan, and quicker. Draymond averaged close to 2 steals per 36. I think Russell would be markedly higher. I think his block percentage would be around 8.5 and his steal percentage would be around 3.5. He’s be getting around 3 to 4 blocks and 2.5 to 3 steals a game. Only one player has a 200 block/200 steal season: Hakeem. I think Russell would get there pretty much every year he played 90% of his team’s games and played 36-39 mpg. Bill Russell was never a physically intimidating C; he scared opponents because of speed and footwork (see Noah in his best year and, again, Hakeem.). That would make him more valuable defending spread offenses now. I’d still play him at C and PF, knowing he’d be outside a lot more and could switch off quickly and challenge the PFs that are now out there, and make life miserable in the passing lanes.


Interestingly, Hakeem and Russell are very similar physically as well. But Russell came into the league as a better, smarter defensive player than Hakeem. By the time Hakeem’s smarts got to an elite level on that end, his athleticism had slightly declined, and continued to do so. And I think the same would happen with Russell—but I think that’s your comparison. Take Hakeem’s 2-3 best years. Russell would be slightly better than that, for more like 7 or 8 years, and would have a similar decline in his last 5 or 6 years. His defensive impact would be astronomical; far better than Draymond or Gobert, better than peak KG. My God, he’d be amazing.

The offensive question is more of a “what if” and that’s where you’ll get separation in terms of what people feel Russell’s overall impact would be. I personally think the same think that would make him more valuable on D would help him a bit on offense as well. Russell played low post on offense, or at least got the ball there often on offense, and it was a crowded time in the key back then. Not so much now. I’d keep him mid or low post, and have him move down low off the dribble or off PnRs. I mean, I’m a Clipper fan. Is Ivica Zubac going to be quick enough to stay with Russell? No. And on our team, if Zu or Hart can’t guard you, we do what most teams do—go small ball. Is Marcus Morris or Nick Batum going to stop Russell? They’re still not as quick—and they’re giving up size and length. And, unlike the 60s, there aren’t many PFs and SFs in the key trying to shoot or get rebounds. They’re mid key or perimeter players. There’s much less of a second line of help defenders nearby in the paint. And that means when you beat your guy down low, it’s more definitive in terms of having an open look or good shot. IMO, Russell wouldn’t shoot (as) much, but the lack of other defenders in the key would let him shoot around 50%. Figure 11 shots in 38 minutes; That’s 11 points. He wouldn’t go the line as much either—maybe 3.5 to 4 times a game. And 2 to 2.5 points more. That’s around 13-14 points a game. It’s not like his passing would suffer with more open passing lanes; 4 assists is conservative, but what the hey. So 13 and 4 and around 12.5 boards in 38 mpg (that’s about a 10-15% drop in his rebound percentage, from playing out of the low post more in a modern game). And, yeah, add 300 blocks and 210 steals in the 75 games he plays.

It’s like an old TV commercial: “Now how much would you pay?” And the answer is a lot. The max. Because a player like that, with his defensive skills and moderate to low usage and adequate offense, works in almost every team scenario. It’s the type of player that would make any team better—most of them a lot better. And that makes sense, because that’s exactly what Bill Russell did.

Sorry for the long post.

dont be sorry, this was a good post

[TT8198]

I think Bill Russell into today's game is a suped up Robert Williams with better playmaking. Just a freak athlete on both ends of the floor .

On offense I'd utilize his athleticism by getting him plenty of lobs. I think Bill Russell next to a LeBron or a Luka would be crazy. With Bill Russell you obviously definitely have to utilize the fast break. He'd be a nightmare in transition in any era. You'd also have to figure out a way to showcase his passing as well.

Defensively I think Bill Russell would excelle regardless. Again Bill Russell is a generational athlete i see him being able to guard all 5 positions obviously after given the chance to adapt to todays gamd. Hed be a more athletic Draymond. How much he dominates is truly up to coaching. You get him with Greg Popovich that's scary.

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

[tsherkin]

A couple of things—I’m of the opinion that the three would help, not hurt, Russell on D. We are talking about someone who would fairly frequently leave his man in the post, leap out to challenge wings shooting 20 footers, and have the quicks to get back in. Today, those low post players are often mid-post or on perimeter already. It’s generally thought/believed/said that Russell got about 6-8 blocks a game. Today, there are (a lot) fewer interior shots taken; I’d imagine Russell’s shot blocking would go down by 50%. But I think his steal numbers would be good; more than that. Terrifyingly good. Imagine if Draymond was, say, four inches taller with three inches more wingspan, and quicker. Draymond averaged close to 2 steals per 36. I think Russell would be markedly higher. I think his block percentage would be around 8.5 and his steal percentage would be around 3.5. He’s be getting around 3 to 4 blocks and 2.5 to 3 steals a game. Only one player has a 200 block/200 steal season: Hakeem. I think Russell would get there pretty much every year he played 90% of his team’s games and played 36-39 mpg. Bill Russell was never a physically intimidating C; he scared opponents because of speed and footwork (see Noah in his best year and, again, Hakeem.). That would make him more valuable defending spread offenses now. I’d still play him at C and PF, knowing he’d be outside a lot more and could switch off quickly and challenge the PFs that are now out there, and make life miserable in the passing lanes.


Interestingly, Hakeem and Russell are very similar physically as well. But Russell came into the league as a better, smarter defensive player than Hakeem. By the time Hakeem’s smarts got to an elite level on that end, his athleticism had slightly declined, and continued to do so. And I think the same would happen with Russell—but I think that’s your comparison. Take Hakeem’s 2-3 best years. Russell would be slightly better than that, for more like 7 or 8 years, and would have a similar decline in his last 5 or 6 years. His defensive impact would be astronomical; far better than Draymond or Gobert, better than peak KG. My God, he’d be amazing.

The offensive question is more of a “what if” and that’s where you’ll get separation in terms of what people feel Russell’s overall impact would be. I personally think the same think that would make him more valuable on D would help him a bit on offense as well. Russell played low post on offense, or at least got the ball there often on offense, and it was a crowded time in the key back then. Not so much now. I’d keep him mid or low post, and have him move down low off the dribble or off PnRs. I mean, I’m a Clipper fan. Is Ivica Zubac going to be quick enough to stay with Russell? No. And on our team, if Zu or Hart can’t guard you, we do what most teams do—go small ball. Is Marcus Morris or Nick Batum going to stop Russell? They’re still not as quick—and they’re giving up size and length. And, unlike the 60s, there aren’t many PFs and SFs in the key trying to shoot or get rebounds. They’re mid key or perimeter players. There’s much less of a second line of help defenders nearby in the paint. And that means when you beat your guy down low, it’s more definitive in terms of having an open look or good shot. IMO, Russell wouldn’t shoot (as) much, but the lack of other defenders in the key would let him shoot around 50%. Figure 11 shots in 38 minutes; That’s 11 points. He wouldn’t go the line as much either—maybe 3.5 to 4 times a game. And 2 to 2.5 points more. That’s around 13-14 points a game. It’s not like his passing would suffer with more open passing lanes; 4 assists is conservative, but what the hey. So 13 and 4 and around 12.5 boards in 38 mpg (that’s about a 10-15% drop in his rebound percentage, from playing out of the low post more in a modern game). And, yeah, add 300 blocks and 210 steals in the 75 games he plays.

It’s like an old TV commercial: “Now how much would you pay?” And the answer is a lot. The max. Because a player like that, with his defensive skills and moderate to low usage and adequate offense, works in almost every team scenario. It’s the type of player that would make any team better—most of them a lot better. And that makes sense, because that’s exactly what Bill Russell did.

Sorry for the long post.

dont be sorry, this was a good post

Second that, falcon! Nice one, True!