Bill Russell's (Massive) Impact

[ushvinder88]

Hard to win 11 titles when you're not an offensive superstar.

There, I've fixed your post and given you the appearance of insight. You're right, it's very, very hard.

In a watered down era.

People always scream about that when gloating about an Eastern Conference superstar today, but God forbid anyone say any such claims about any holy 60s player.

Exactly, duncan and hakeem would have been defensive gods if they were in that era playing against 6'7 slower, less athletic players.

[GetItDone]

Funny how you went right along with my change without protest. I'd say that gets at the crux of what I find so pointless of your posts.

In the end, you don't believe Russell is a GOAT candidate because you believe guys back then weren't very good, but you spend most of your time harping about offense and defense which just seems silly, given that they had offense and defense back then, and no one thought you could win so much with a defense-focus back then until Russell did it.

In short: Russell's accomplishments aren't to be dismissed unless his era sucked, Russell's lopsided-ness toward the defensive side of the ball is NOT the proof that the era sucked. So, focus on the era, not on Russell.

I am focusing on the era.

It was a watered down era with mostly guys below 6"7 or so and many guys didn't even dribble with both hands. I wasn't around then, but I watched my fair share of games on YT. I couldn't even keep watching it was like robots running around. The fact that Russell couldn't dominate that era offensively makes me wonder what he'd even accomplish now. Even as good as he was defensively then, I have my doubts on whether even 50% of his defensive impact would translate to today's game.

[Johnlac1]

The AVERAGE height of the players in the NBA in the mid-sixties was 6:6. Russell mostly played against players his size or larger. That included going against Chamberlain about 8 times during the regular season. He also played some other hofers like 6:11 Nate Thurmond and 6:10 Willis Reed. Walt Bellamy was another big center. Wayne Embry and Westly Unseld at about 6:7 /6:8 were anomalies. But both were very strong. Would Russell duplicate his stats in today's game? No. But look at a Bismack Biyombo who's improved by about twenty percent, and you can approximate Russell. What is lost in the picture is the fact that Russell had one of the highest intelligence/desire quotients of any player ever.

[fatal9]

Very tough to assign him with a lot of that impact through just ppg numbers.

- Celtics could be playing more uptempo smallball with Russell out so strategically they could be playing differently.
- The ppg team numbers vary season to season over an entire decade. Russell may have missed more games in seasons where Celtics were scoring more and also giving up more points. Not sure if you included a weighing method to account for this though.
- Is overtime accounted for in the ppg numbers? If Celtics had a higher rate of overtime games in games Russell was out (could happen since games were probably closer) then that would also impact ppg numbers.


Just by quickly looking at the numbers I feel like a higher pace explains a lot of the story here. I wouldn't expect the offense to get better with Russell out for example (offensive rebounding, passing, igniting fast break, and despite being inefficient by current standards he was right at league average or better back then). And I also wouldn't expect the drop off to be so massive with him gone because Celtics did have a lot of good defensive players with guys like KC Jones, Satch Sanders and so on.

Another caveat is that I've noticed some of those Celtic teams lacked a proper backup C, they would be REALLY small with Russell out. For example, the second tallest player in '62 was Tommy Heinsohn at 6'7, so that's the guy you have to play center to defend and rebound against guys like Wilt, Bellamy and so on. The in/out difference would be much larger than perhaps it should be in this case because of what the roster looks like without the starting center.


Regardless, Russell clearly had a massive impact defensively. Was he lowering opposing ppg by 15 a game? Doubt it. Was he a net negative on offense? Also doubt it.

[PTB Fan]

Bill Russell's impact was as good as it gets. He did what it was needed for them to win.

[ElGee]

I mean, what were the DATES of the 28 games. Not the data...

[colts18]

I mean, what were the DATES of the 28 games. Not the data...

This article helped me and gave me the dates for almost all of the games. For the games they didn't give a date for, they usually gave the Opponent points and team played so it was easy to search for that.


http://www.behindthebasket.com/btb/2011 ... ssell.html

[colts18]

Does anyone here know how to do box score pace estimates for this era (paging Elgee!)? I have the boxscores for 9 out of 28 of these games. Unfortunately in this sample, the Celtics averaged 130 PPG and allowed 130 so its not 100% indicative of how the Celtics played without Russell.

[Josephpaul]

Hard to win 11 titles when you're not an offensive superstar.

There, I've fixed your post and given you the appearance of insight. You're right, it's very, very hard.

In a low offensive era? i don't think so man.

[treyve]

Too bad he wouldn't have anywhere near that sort of impact today.

Where the offenses and players are far better.

That pretty much disqualifies him from any GOAT talk.

The GOAT should be the best in any era.

[Doctor MJ]

Hard to win 11 titles when you're not an offensive superstar.

There, I've fixed your post and given you the appearance of insight. You're right, it's very, very hard.

In a low offensive era? i don't think so man.

I'm not even sure what to say to that. It's not like if Russell wasn't around there was any other player in the NBA at the time who would have done it. When a guy does something no one else alive in the world can do, I think that qualifies as "hard".

[kasino]

wasn't he always around top 5 in FG% in his era?
he would undoubtably be the best rebound/defender and possibly best passing big
don't see how he wouldn't be the best player on any team Dwight Webber is better then Lebron or Durant

[colts18]

wasn't he always around top 5 in FG% in his era?
he would undoubtably be the best rebound/defender and possibly best passing big
don't see how he wouldn't be the best player on any team Dwight Webber is better then Lebron or Durant

But Russell's passing skills were not even close to Webber's level. Russell was below average offensively. It's more like Dwight Howard if Howard was inefficient.

[Shot Clock]

I'm really not shocked. Take 61-62 when the article mentions he missed 4 games. They had no one other then their starting PF that was taller then 6'6". And that was 1 guy. They had no bench at all for their front court.

[kasino]

wasn't he always around top 5 in FG% in his era?
he would undoubtably be the best rebound/defender and possibly best passing big
don't see how he wouldn't be the best player on any team Dwight Webber is better then Lebron or Durant

But Russell's passing skills were not even close to Webber's level. Russell was below average offensively. It's more like Dwight Howard if Howard was inefficient.

No he's percentage is slightly off from webber's and I don't know if we adjust for era, with more shots going up not to mention more playmakers on his team then on Webber's or pretty much anyone's in history
and of course less efficient then Howard, he is Shaq-esque with percentages but top 5 in the league is Bynum

[colts18]

No he's percentage is slightly off from webber's and I don't know if we adjust for era, with more shots going up not to mention more playmakers on his team then on Webber's or pretty much anyone's in history
and of course less efficient then Howard, he is Shaq-esque with percentages but top 5 in the league is Bynum

Bill Russell was never a real good offensive player at any point of his career. He wasn't anywhere near Webber's level as far as playmaking. If he was, the celtics would have a good offense. All the evidence points to Russell being below average (team result, PPG, efficiency, in/out, eye test, etc.)

[kasino]

No he's percentage is slightly off from webber's and I don't know if we adjust for era, with more shots going up not to mention more playmakers on his team then on Webber's or pretty much anyone's in history
and of course less efficient then Howard, he is Shaq-esque with percentages but top 5 in the league is Bynum

Bill Russell was never a real good offensive player at any point of his career. He wasn't anywhere near Webber's level as far as playmaking. If he was, the celtics would have a good offense. All the evidence points to Russell being below average (team result, PPG, efficiency, in/out, eye test, etc.)

Eye test defineitly shows he's great offensive player, who in the 60's would get that nod over him other then Wilt
efficiency as being one of the league leaders in FG%
IDK the in/out numbers, do you mind brining them forward
team results? they won consistently
PPG usually the 2nd-4th leading scorer on his team but I don't think scoring would be his focus in this era at all
and usually the 2nd-3rd playmaker on his team
the 1st RS AST% available he averaged 5.3 of the 22.15 assist his team got.
Webber is his 9th season averaged 4.8 of his team 23.87 assist his team got per game

[colts18]

Eye test defineitly shows he's great offensive player, who in the 60's would get that nod over him other then Wilt
efficiency as being one of the league leaders in FG%

Watch the youtube videos on Russell. None of those moves would work in today's game.

Russell was very inefficient. His TS% was only decent for 4 years, the other years he was horrific. Michael beasley like on offense.

IDK the in/out numbers, do you mind brining them forward

Read the OP dude. It's right there. That was the point of this thread.

team results? they won consistently

I'm referring to team results on offense since we are discussing offense. The offense sucked with Russell at the helm but the defense was lights out.

the 1st RS AST% available he averaged 5.3 of the 22.15 assist his team got.
Webber is his 9th season averaged 4.8 of his team 23.87 assist his team got per game

Compare Russell's AST% to Webber's. Russell from 65 onward was at 15 AST% (would be even lower if you included his whole career). Webber was at 20%. Pretty big difference.

[kasino]

Why wouldn't his moves work, it's not like he towers over players he is far more athletic then most
inefficient compared to today can you use it against his contemporaries

when you said in/out thought you meant off/on

yea they played faster like any other team without their center would

it wouldn't be lower, his twilight years are available. Usually earlier seasons in players career's are much better statistically
not really 20% of 10 is 2, 15% of 10 is 1.5...that .5 off a differential
Webber also didn't play with Cousy who took on far more playmaking responsibilities then every PG Webber played with

[Doctor MJ]

No he's percentage is slightly off from webber's and I don't know if we adjust for era, with more shots going up not to mention more playmakers on his team then on Webber's or pretty much anyone's in history
and of course less efficient then Howard, he is Shaq-esque with percentages but top 5 in the league is Bynum

Bill Russell was never a real good offensive player at any point of his career. He wasn't anywhere near Webber's level as far as playmaking. If he was, the celtics would have a good offense. All the evidence points to Russell being below average (team result, PPG, efficiency, in/out, eye test, etc.)

So if Russell was "good" on offense, the Celtics would have had a "good offense"? This is not a reasonable assertion. By that reasoning, Oscar & West weren't good on offense. As good as they were, they couldn't do it by themselves.

Russell was not an offensive superstar, but yes he was certainly good on offense. The whole narrative otherwise is mistaking Russell's continued specialization as he aged as scoring weakness when in actuality it was just focus elsewhere.