Why do people keep saying Bill Russell is of the GOATs?

[ChokeFasncists]

It'd be interesting if this guy played for the Nash, Marion, Amare MDA team.

[JLei]

The Celtics' offense was pretty much an equal opportunity system, they never had a league leading scorer, and their efficiencies (meaning, for both individual players, and the team as a whole), by design, weren't great...



Columns 1 and 2 correspond to Russell, columns 3 and 4 correspond to his teammates, season by season. From the numbers, it seems like this was an equal opportunity offense for the most part, Russell doesn't seem too far removed from his teammates in terms of relative FG%.

A couple of quotes from his teammates adding validity to the claim that the offensive gameplan was quantity over quality:

Tom Heinsohn: We had a very simple objective at the start of every game: We were going to take more shots than the other team, as many more as we could. So the less time we wasted bringing the ball upcourt, the more shots we’d get, and the easier those shots would probably be because the defense would be caught unprepared.

We were trained to play at a pace other teams didn’t like, to extend ourselves 100 percent every minute we were out there. Other coaches preferred to slow the pace so that their players would still be strong at the end of the game if they had to go the full forty-eight minutes. Red’s approach was just the opposite: Turn the contest into a physical test of wills!

Even if other teams were able to match us shot for shot, they weren’t getting as many good shots as the game wore on because they were being forced to think quicker, shoot quicker, and make decisions quicker, invariably leading to more turnovers than they were accustomed to committing.

We didn’t waste a lot of time looking for the perfect shots, the way other teams did. Our idea was to overwhelm the opposition by the number of shots we took; the emphasis was clearly on quantity.

The mathematics of that approach were obvious. If we took 100 shots and made only 40 percent, we’d still have as many points as a team that took 80 shots and made 50 percent. The meant if the other team was trying to limit its number of shots by playing a slower game, it was going to have to shoot a much higher percentage than we did in order to beat us.

We weren’t worried about percentages. People look back at those Celtics today and say, “Hey, Cousy shot only 38 percent,” but that’s a misunderstanding of the way we played.

The constant battle was to find ways to upbeat the tempo and to never allow the other team to slow us down; more important, to never allow them time to catch their breath or to think. […] With Cousy and Russell perfecting what they knew at opposite ends of the floor, allowing us to become more and more assertive all the time, we were simply too much for most teams to withstand. We were the marines, baby! Charge! That was us: the leathernecks of the NBA, charging up Pork Chop Hill every night.
— Tommy Heinsohn and Joe Fitzgerald, Give ’em the Hook (Prentice Hall, 1988), pp. 81-82

John Havlicek: The Celtics have never won by field goal percentage. On at least one occasion they had the worst team shooting percentage in the league. But they took the most shots and they also accomplished their main objective, which was to win the championship. The Celtics have been blessed with a succession of great rebounders, from Bill Russell to Dave Cowens and Paul Silas, who have enabled them to have possession of the ball more than other teams. The rule of thumb for me, and for every other Celtic, has been, ‘If you’ve got the shot, take it. Otherwise you’re no good to us.’ This is not to say that your better shooters shouldn’t get the ball in key situations. It means that, as Red says, you can’t let them insult you. There is nothing wrong with a so-so shooter taking an open shot when there are good offensive rebounders positioned underneath the basket.
— John Havlicek and Bob Ryan, Hondo: Celtic Man in Motion (Prentice-Hall, 1977), p. 91

I don't know if Russell would be a plus offensive contributor today, but it's pretty silly IMO to just look at his raw FG%, devoid of context, and cast judgments on him as a player.

Lol dafuq at that Heinsohn quote. "Mathematics"!

Unless forcing a ton of turnovers/ getting a lot of offensive rebounds was part of that whole playing fast strategy he does know that both teams get an equal amount of possessions right? Just shooting quicker and worse than the other team doesn't magically get you more possessions than the other team.

The play at a fast pace to wear down your opponent is a legitimate strategy and point. His "Mathematics" quote well probably speaks of someone who doesn't understand Mathematics very well.

Probably goes to highlight Russell's defense even more that they took the worse end of most possessions on offense and still ended up winning most games.

[payton2kemp]

If there are more players close to the basket, how on earth can you argue it would be easier to get rebounds? Blocks maybe, but a crowded lane means a significantly more difficult scrum when the shot goes up, to say otherwise is kind of backwards.

With poor spacing it was easier to assume that things would be closer to the basket. You combine this with the fact that he was taller than most of those around him and a better athlete, it means that he can play closer to the basket and is in a relatively better position to chase rebounds.

http://courtvisionanalytics.com/where-do-rebounds-go/

"Offensive rebounding percentage for jump shots hovers between 20 and 25%; however, missed shots closer to the rim such as floaters, put-backs, and layups result in a much higher offensive rebounding rate."

You shoot closer to the basket and it's less likely the ball bounces as far away or with as much speed.

"There is a direct relationship between shot distance and rebound distance. The longer the shot attempt, the further away from the rim the rebound is likely to occur. The corresponds with the idea that 3-point shots often result in “long rebounds”.:

"Check out the rebounding epicenter here: when a player misses a longish midrange baseline shot, rebounds are most commonly grabbed at the edge of the “restricted area” on the opposite side of the rim. When we step back to the corner-3 zones, we see the exact same effect – the only difference is that the rebounding epicenter occurs a bit further from the rim… longer shots beget longer rebounds, you guys."

And I would discount what his teammates say. Saying that he benefited from weaker competition would be criticizing their own play.

A GOAT should be the most skilled player at his position. In what world would you take Bill Russell over Hakeem, Shaq, Kareem, etc.? Can you honestly say that Bill Russell could stop Shaq? Come on man.

[ceiling raiser]

Fpliii, I guess you could say that the Celtic's offensive gameplan actually made the defense work then? Or rather, that the offense was part of their defense in that it threw off the other team on that end.

I feel that they played offense through their defense, at least based on the quotes/data and watching tape. That is to say, I think their defense enabled them to play this quantity over quality offense.

It seems that with their pressure defense, they were able to force a disproportionate amount of turnovers/bad shots, that they may not have been able to in another era. Not sure if you read the Top 100 project threads, but I do have a legitimate concern about Russell...

Here is a table with the number of black players by a few different measures in the league through the end of Russell's career:



Here are some approximated playoff ORtg/DRtg numbers adjusted for opposition faced:



During their last four championship seasons, the Celtics were consistently pretty good offensively, and not as dominant defensively. Now, this coincides with Russell's decline, but it also might have something to do with the integration of the league (half black by minutes from 63-64 on). Not confident enough to say that Russell wasn't capable of monster impact in a mostly-black league (and I don't want to make it purely a racial issue), but I'm not 100% certain than it didn't have a marked effect on his level of play.

[FX20014]

You know there's a problem with basketball fans when Michael Rappaport is being quoted. Really guys? Are we know questioning Bill Russell? He's one of the top 5 of all-time.

[FX20014]

Michael Rapport got a lot of hate for pointing out the obvious, Bill Russell played in a league of castoffs, which is the only reason he has all those championships, http://nesn.com/2014/10/michael-rapapor ... ple-video/.

There were like 4 guys that were near 7 feet back then and the level of play was atrocious. Despite being able to grab boards based on the sheer fact that everyone else was shorter and less athletic, he had a FG% under 50%.

Watch the film of him, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40iKnaUjz_w and compare it to players that didn't play with a bunch of used-car salesmen. Go to 8:59 and look at the ball movement in the 1960s--imagine if the Spurs played like this, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L78v25cinYI.

MJ, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAr6oAKieHk.
Kobe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZfJJwsRaiE.
Shaq, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewBnHq04CRg.
Duncan, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZc3uq56JKU.

Let's go back to that era:
1) There was no three-point shot, so spacing was tighter making it easier to get blocks and rebounds, especially for a guy with that kind of height.
2) Players didn't have anywhere near the athleticism and ball control of athletes today. There is no 1960s Russell Westbrook.
3) The game was way less complex. You basically have the same level of sophistication in 1960 that you get in high school today.
4) The poor shot selection and fast pace meant that there were a million rebounds and no one boxed out or positioned like they do today. A 10-second shot clock would have worked with the way they played back then.
5) You had fewer teams and (relatively) he played on a stacked Celtics team.
6) There was no concept of footwork for big guys back then. Show me anything Russell could do that rivalled the Dream Shake, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxDopaqTxiY.

As Rapport says, Brian Scalabrine could have dominated back then. Let's stop pretending that Bill Russell's career is anything more than what happens when a man plays among boys.

[JeepCSC]

I feel like my problem is an outlier will by definition have more impact on a small league with less across-the-board athleticism. Once we accept that, we can better look at Russell's impact. He was the ultimate '60s player on the ultimate '60s team. He probably dominates his era better than anyone short of '90s Jordan. Whether that makes him GOAT is an interesting debate. I'll admit I'm not convinced his defense as is is better than say, Hakeem's or Duncan's, but it is an intriguing question.

[Dr Spaceman]

Here is a table with the number of black players by a few different measures in the league through the end of Russell's career:

Spoiler:

Here are some approximated playoff ORtg/DRtg numbers adjusted for opposition faced:



During their last four championship seasons, the Celtics were consistently pretty good offensively, and not as dominant defensively. Now, this coincides with Russell's decline, but it also might have something to do with the integration of the league (half black by minutes from 63-64 on). Not confident enough to say that Russell wasn't capable of monster impact in a mostly-black league (and I don't want to make it purely a racial issue), but I'm not 100% certain than it didn't have a marked effect on his level of play.

So this is really interesting. The only thing that would really counter is the fact that in 1964 they posted that disgustingly good DRTG, and that the percentage from 1964 is still 50%, as opposed to the 57% for pretty much every year after (ie. not a tremendous difference).

The problem for me is that there is a slightly more obvious explanation: that teams just adapted to the Celtics style of ball. It's known that they were pioneers in a lot of ways, so maybe it's just that other teams didn't let them get away with as many of their advanced tactics anymore, or even that they adopted them.

But yeah, that's intriuing. I'm glad we have this type of outside the box thinking on this board.

[Joao Saraiva]

There are some possible explanations for things:
- winning bias - yes he won 11 of 13. So the way some guys see it, that estabilishes him among the best guys ever. But winning 11 of 13 in today's era is impossible. There is a reason teams don't often even make the finals 3 times in a row.

- people don't really care about portability, so against his league he was definitely ahead of his time. His defense was great for those kind of rules, and he really had a great impact with it. I can say: would he be better than Hakeem nowadays? I doubt it. But it's also not Russell's fault, he didn't play the game of today so he had to play against those teams and he did it the best way.

[Warspite]

He got hurt in the Finals in his 2nd yr

He lost to Wilt and the 67 sixers who might be the GOAT team.


He won the title other yr he played.


The OP is confusing style with substance. Its not about how you look. Its about what you accomplish.

[ChokeFasncists]

Lol dafuq at that Heinsohn quote. "Mathematics"!

Unless forcing a ton of turnovers/ getting a lot of offensive rebounds was part of that whole playing fast strategy

I guess it was:

Even if other teams were able to match us shot for shot, they weren’t getting as many good shots as the game wore on because they were being forced to think quicker, shoot quicker, and make decisions quicker, invariably leading to more turnovers than they were accustomed to committing.

John Havlicek:The Celtics have been blessed with a succession of great rebounders, from Bill Russell to Dave Cowens and Paul Silas, who have enabled them to have possession of the ball more than other teams.
— John Havlicek and Bob Ryan, Hondo: Celtic Man in Motion (Prentice-Hall, 1977), p. 91

On rebounding (related topic):

“Russell had an effective rebounding range of eighteen feet. If he was nine feet off to one side of the basket, he could race over to pull down a rebound nine feet off to the other side! I saw him do it many times. That’s the kind of athletic ability he had.”
— Tom Heinsohn, Give 'em the Hook, p. 64

[GYK]

Even going by style Russell would still be considered a GOAT contender
Outlet passes like Love
Top 10 through his career in FG% relative to the league
Top 20 in assist per game relative to the league
That's what's missing on stat sites, +/- to league average. It doesn't explain style but helps when you only get to see just stats. Also a scoring metric and a point guard metric.

Yea Wilt shot over 50%. He was far more dominant. Doesn't mean to be great you have to shot like he does.
Relative to each season Russell was apart of the elite in each category tracked, except FT%. He got to the line, scored in the top 20. Rebounded like Rodman and was a defensive juggernaut like KG.

[MrKnox]

Youngsters always believe that anything that happened before their time was primitive compared to today. It's unfortunate. Russell's last year was '68-'69. Six months after his 11th and final title, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (Lew Alcindor) made his debut. Kareem played until 1989 and was kicking Hakeem's and Ewing's ass as late as 1986. Hakeem and Ewing both played against Shaq and Shaq played with Lebron. People think that Russell and the '60's are so far removed but it's really not.

[D.Brasco]

Regardless of his competition (which at the center position was a hell of a lot better than now). Russell is an athlete that would transcend era's.

He had the athleticism:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2AlFrOj5Mc[/youtube]

and yes size, he would have been taller than Dwight and probably at least Hakeem's size, when in his prime.

[Doctor MJ]

Michael Rapport got a lot of hate for pointing out the obvious, Bill Russell played in a league of castoffs, which is the only reason he has all those championships, http://nesn.com/2014/10/michael-rapapor ... ple-video/.

There were like 4 guys that were near 7 feet back then and the level of play was atrocious. Despite being able to grab boards based on the sheer fact that everyone else was shorter and less athletic, he had a FG% under 50%.

Watch the film of him, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40iKnaUjz_w and compare it to players that didn't play with a bunch of used-car salesmen. Go to 8:59 and look at the ball movement in the 1960s--imagine if the Spurs played like this, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L78v25cinYI.

MJ, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAr6oAKieHk.
Kobe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZfJJwsRaiE.
Shaq, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewBnHq04CRg.
Duncan, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZc3uq56JKU.

Let's go back to that era:
1) There was no three-point shot, so spacing was tighter making it easier to get blocks and rebounds, especially for a guy with that kind of height.
2) Players didn't have anywhere near the athleticism and ball control of athletes today. There is no 1960s Russell Westbrook.
3) The game was way less complex. You basically have the same level of sophistication in 1960 that you get in high school today.
4) The poor shot selection and fast pace meant that there were a million rebounds and no one boxed out or positioned like they do today. A 10-second shot clock would have worked with the way they played back then.
5) You had fewer teams and (relatively) he played on a stacked Celtics team.
6) There was no concept of footwork for big guys back then. Show me anything Russell could do that rivalled the Dream Shake, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxDopaqTxiY.

As Rapport says, Brian Scalabrine could have dominated back then. Let's stop pretending that Bill Russell's career is anything more than what happens when a man plays among boys.

Fundamentally you and that dude lose all credibility when you talk like you are. Scalaborine? C'mob. You're probably thinking "It's hyperbole man, chill!", but if you want to have a serious discussion, be serious.

My initial though when I hear this topic is: Why are you bringing up Russell? Why aren't you focusing on Wilt Chamberlain?

It's not a damning fact in and of itself given that I consider Russell the best player of the era. I have to think though that for anyone like that actor, there's a reason why someone who didn't know the details of what Russell even did is bringing up Russell rather than Wilt: Because no one really doubts that Wilt's physical talent was top of the line for any era.

And this is key to the evaluation of Russell. If Russell really was going up against a bunch of Dolph Schayes-type guys at center, and that was all it took to win titles, it would be serious knock. But the fact that some players like that existed doesn't really let you ignore the fact that he dominated guys who were very much at peak modern day levels.

To your numbered points:

1) 3-point line. Absolutely. Russell played in an era where a big man could be more effective than today. That's a fine thing to bring up, but not in an "overrated" discussion. People who "rated" Russell originally obviously did so based on the rules of the time. You doing meta-analysis on top of that doesn't make them wrong, it's just one more facet of the conversation.

2) Athleticism shift; Westbrook. There's truth here but it's easy to exaggerate. If you think, for example, that Westbrook is a greater basketball talent based on his athleticism than Wilt was, you're silly. Beyond that, to the extent that training and equipment improvements have improved the explosiveness of the game, it's not even clear we should give modern players a bonus for that. Obviously, guys who played back then did so with the materials available to them.

I think though beyond that it's important to understand the implications of Russell's longevity. If you do statistical analyses on the history of the NBA trying to find where the peak slope of the S-curve was (meaning, the time where the growth truly exploded), you see that it occurred over the first 15 years or so. Which is another way of saying that Russell being the best in the '50s is something to easily brush aside...but Russell still being the best all the way through the '60s despite dealing with the issues of aging on explosiveness is utterly insane. Along those same line: Wilt continued to be as-good-as-they-come of a physical specimen well into the '70s during which Kareem was there, of course he lasted right through the '80s. It's the longevity of the dominance that makes it unrealistic to talk as if the game completely and utterly changed from Russell's era until now. Such as shift did occur, but it happened prior to and during Russell's run.

3) Less complex game. Sure, but if you read how Russell approached the game you can see his understanding dwarfs more most modern players. If we could only get Kobe Bryant and Carmelo Anthony up to what Russell understood half a century ago, they'd be much better players. That's crazy.

4) Game flow inflated rebounds. Sure. No one should use Russell's raw rebounding numbers in an argument. We have done adjustments for such things though, and Russell still looks quite amazing.

5) Stacked Celtic team. While there's some truth here in general people vastly overrate this. The bottom line is that when teams win, people overrate the players in question. That includes Russell depending on who you are. For myself I went through a stage where I considered Russell overrated for that reason, but as I did deeper analysis I realize his impact on that team was considerably bigger than I'd assumed and that many of the other Hall of Famers were not simply overrated, but VERY overrated.

6) Footwork; Dream Shake. Pretty minor point. The reality is that no big has had footwork like Hakeem, and yet still if Hakeem played today it's questionable whether you'd really want him volume scoring. The reality is that Wilt Chamberlain was a plenty serious offensive threat, and one whose body Russell did not line up with in any obvious way, and yet Russell still hung with him.

[JeepCSC]

I can say: would he be better than Hakeem nowadays? I doubt it.

It is perhaps a problem when discussing GOATs and acknowledging someone is locked into their era. Being revolutionary is not the same as being the greatest. Of course basketball GOAT is a nebulous term, depending on what you are looking for. But I'll admit it is hard for me to ignore portability.

[ardee]

Sorry couldn't resist.

[KilloJoeX]

[








3) Less complex game. Sure, but if you read how Russell approached the game you can see his understanding dwarfs more most modern players. If we could only get Kobe Bryant and Carmelo Anthony up to what Russell understood half a century ago, they'd be much better players. That's crazy.

Yeah, just imagine if Kobe understood the game as well as Russ. He'd probably have a bunch of rings and would be widely regarded as a top ten player of all-time.

Oh. Wait.

He does and he is.

lmao.

You're a **** idiot.

[ardee]

You're a **** idiot.

Son, you won't be making too many friends here with that attitude

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Shot Clock]

Here are some approximated playoff ORtg/DRtg numbers adjusted for opposition faced:

How do you get DRTG without some of the crucial building blocks like TO and ORB/DRB?