Garnett vs Russell

[capfan33]

Think about 5 to 6x is a good estimate and ofc this doesn’t even get into general skillset and training evolution. Still think Russell would be top-10 today.

[Doctor MJ]

When talking about talent pool I think it's important to recognize:

It's entirely possible that more American kids were regularly playing basketball in the '30s than they are now.

That surely seems like a crazy statement but people need to get it into their head that just because the NBA was nascent, doesn't mean basketball was. The NBA comes about precisely because American youth was playing basketball like crazy - in a way more similar to how they play video games nowadays - and people were going out and watching local teams with an enthusiasm that they simply don't do today. It was very much a bet on a sport that already had a talent base and thus was ready to play in big arenas.

If we look at the things about the landscape that really were nascent:

1. Evaluation of basketball tactics was still primitive. They didn't have the data to really know which types of shots were the best shots for the human body to be accurate with, and they didn't understand what was possible with non-goaltending shot blocking.

2. That meant that the skills for those best moves weren't anything like optimized yet.

3. The materials - ball & court - were primitive and spotty. The average pro back then was literally a better passer than the average NBA passer precisely because you couldn't rely on dribbling at every location.

4. Primitive medicine which tended to mean that your career was over the first time you had a serious injury.

5. A lack of big-salary-goal driving young athletes. Doesn't mean they weren't playing like crazy as youths, but really it wasn't until after World War II that having a pro career became anywhere near as good of a plan as becoming a college coach.

6. The separation of Black & White basketball didn't just mean that Black players weren't getting to play in the big leagues, but that most Black players in general weren't getting the mentorship they needed to become elite pros. Example:

While the Harlem Rens & Globetrotters really were elite pro Black teams in the '30s & '40s, and they had some scouting to pick up younger talent, they didn't have the ability to scout all over the country. Bill Russell's primarily Black McClymond high school in Oakland, CA was the best team in that giant state, but California is a long way from where those Black pro teams were operating.

[eminence]

Meanwhile, the top international talent makes up about half the top-level talent pool now. So we can roughly double that US-based discrepancy. That leaves me with a rough conclusion that there’s probably about 5x or 6x more top-level talent in the NBA than there was in Russell’s era.

Similar views for US talent and a good breakdown of why, but I have a lower estimation of international talent (in NBA play at least). My guess was ~33%.

As an example, we had 26 players named allstars this season. 7 were born outside the US. Obviously some big names like Luka/Embiid/etc aren't included, and I think there is a slight bias against international stars in these awards, but 50% still seems high.

2 of those 7 are also not the most internationals of internationals - SGA is from Toronto and Kyrie was born to American parents who were abroad due to playing basketball. Their 60s equivalents may have played in the NBA.

[Laimbeer]

I don't either is as valuable in the hyper-three era. So much of Russell's greatness is situational - the right team in the right era. I think this is KG.

[lessthanjake]

Meanwhile, the top international talent makes up about half the top-level talent pool now. So we can roughly double that US-based discrepancy. That leaves me with a rough conclusion that there’s probably about 5x or 6x more top-level talent in the NBA than there was in Russell’s era.

Similar views for US talent and a good breakdown of why, but I have a lower estimation of international talent (in NBA play at least). My guess was ~33%.

As an example, we had 26 players named allstars this season. 7 were born outside the US. Obviously some big names like Luka/Embiid/etc aren't included, and I think there is a slight bias against international stars in these awards, but 50% still seems high.

2 of those 7 are also not the most internationals of internationals - SGA is from Toronto and Kyrie was born to American parents who were abroad due to playing basketball. Their 60s equivalents may have played in the NBA.

I think this is a fair point. Maybe 50% was not quite right. I don’t really put guys like SGA in the “international” bucket for these purposes. But I also think the cut off for what we’re talking about should probably be more stringent than just all-stars, since we’re talking about where very top-tier players would land. I think international players are more likely to end up playing basketball the better they are (since it starts making less and less sense for them to end up in another sport or to go to the NBA), so we’d expect them to make up a higher percent of the very top guys than they do of the next tier. And I also think very top talent is the most relevant question here, when we are talking about the very top talent in the past. On that front, I think there’s a pretty good argument that 5 of the 10 best players in the NBA are truly international, at least if we assume health: Jokic, Luka, Giannis, Embiid, and Wemby are all top 10 players if everyone is healthy IMO. If we go beyond the top 10, I agree that the international effect gets smaller. And maybe it’s just random that the very top guys are such a high percent international now and perhaps the true number here really should be below 50%. If we instead took your estimate of 33%, then we are probably looking at more like somewhere around 4x more talent these days.

[eminence]

Meanwhile, the top international talent makes up about half the top-level talent pool now. So we can roughly double that US-based discrepancy. That leaves me with a rough conclusion that there’s probably about 5x or 6x more top-level talent in the NBA than there was in Russell’s era.

Similar views for US talent and a good breakdown of why, but I have a lower estimation of international talent (in NBA play at least). My guess was ~33%.

As an example, we had 26 players named allstars this season. 7 were born outside the US. Obviously some big names like Luka/Embiid/etc aren't included, and I think there is a slight bias against international stars in these awards, but 50% still seems high.

2 of those 7 are also not the most internationals of internationals - SGA is from Toronto and Kyrie was born to American parents who were abroad due to playing basketball. Their 60s equivalents may have played in the NBA.

I think this is a fair point. Maybe 50% was not quite right. I don’t really put guys like SGA in the “international” bucket for these purposes. But I also think the cut off for what we’re talking about should probably be more stringent than just all-stars, since we’re talking about where very top-tier players would land. I think international players are more likely to end up playing basketball the better they are (since it starts making less and less sense for them to end up in another sport or to go to the NBA), so we’d expect them to make up a higher percent of the very top guys than they do of the next tier. And I also think very top talent is the most relevant question here, when we are talking about the very top talent in the past. On that front, I think there’s a pretty good argument that 5 of the 10 best players in the NBA are truly international, at least if we assume health: Jokic, Luka, Giannis, Embiid, and Wemby are all top 10 players if everyone is healthy IMO. If we go beyond the top 10, I agree that the international effect gets smaller. And maybe it’s just random that the very top guys are such a high percent international now and perhaps the true number here really should be below 50%. If we instead took your estimate of 33%, then we are probably looking at more like somewhere around 4x more talent these days.

I could wind up revising my estimate upwards quite quickly if international talents do continue to dominate the very top levels (though this would apply to a lot more eras than just the 60s). For now I'll hold off though, there are so few top tier talents (samples) at the top that randomness really can make things weird. eg I think the 60s 4th guy (West imo) would have a strong argument as the #2 guy from the 70s (DrJ) despite thinking the overall talent level was higher in the 70s.

*A sad sidenote - it's reasonably unlikely we wind up thinking of Embiid/Wemby as overlapping players. They've played like 0.5 seasons at the same time and Embiid could be completely done, let alone an MVP candidate again.

[penbeast0]

Meanwhile, the top international talent makes up about half the top-level talent pool now. So we can roughly double that US-based discrepancy. That leaves me with a rough conclusion that there’s probably about 5x or 6x more top-level talent in the NBA than there was in Russell’s era.

Similar views for US talent and a good breakdown of why, but I have a lower estimation of international talent (in NBA play at least). My guess was ~33%.

As an example, we had 26 players named allstars this season. 7 were born outside the US. Obviously some big names like Luka/Embiid/etc aren't included, and I think there is a slight bias against international stars in these awards, but 50% still seems high.

2 of those 7 are also not the most internationals of internationals - SGA is from Toronto and Kyrie was born to American parents who were abroad due to playing basketball. Their 60s equivalents may have played in the NBA.

I think this is a fair point. Maybe 50% was not quite right. I don’t really put guys like SGA in the “international” bucket for these purposes. But I also think the cut off for what we’re talking about should probably be more stringent than just all-stars, since we’re talking about where very top-tier players would land. I think international players are more likely to end up playing basketball the better they are (since it starts making less and less sense for them to end up in another sport or to go to the NBA), so we’d expect them to make up a higher percent of the very top guys than they do of the next tier. And I also think very top talent is the most relevant question here, when we are talking about the very top talent in the past. On that front, I think there’s a pretty good argument that 5 of the 10 best players in the NBA are truly international, at least if we assume health: Jokic, Luka, Giannis, Embiid, and Wemby are all top 10 players if everyone is healthy IMO. If we go beyond the top 10, I agree that the international effect gets smaller. And maybe it’s just random that the very top guys are such a high percent international now and perhaps the true number here really should be below 50%. If we instead took your estimate of 33%, then we are probably looking at more like somewhere around 4x more talent these days.

In terms of talent pool for bigs, that's probably more reasonable. Even in the 50s, if you were 6'9 or better, you probably got recruited to play basketball even with no discernable skills. Had a teacher once who was 6'11 and had gotten a couple of short stints in the late 60s/early 70s ABA and he was the very definition of a big clumsy galoot. For smaller guys, you also have the alternative of football (as you do today) and baseball and boxing being bigger draws than they are today so maybe the 5/6x number might be accurate.

Compare to the 9 team league of the first half of the 60s and, thanks to the great slowdown in expansion in this century, the team pool has only increased about 3.5 times (less than double the NBA in 75, not even counting the ABA teams). Once reason I am more impressed with Wilt/Russ/Jerry/Oscar than the stars of the 70s/early 80s.

[70sFan]

Then we get to international talent. In Russell’s era, this was essentially non-existent. The talent pool didn’t exist because they simply didn’t play basketball, and weren’t going to the NBA.

So, overall you gave us a very solid estimation with solid arguments behind it, but this particular part is just not true. Basketball wasn't as popular in Europe as in the US, but it's not true that people didn't play basketball in the 1950s and 1960s.

[70sFan]

I don't either is as valuable in the hyper-three era. So much of Russell's greatness is situational - the right team in the right era. I think this is KG.

So what's the linking between 1957 and 1969 that made both teams "right" for Russell in comparison to other great players? What made his situation uniquely great against other GOAT candidates?

[eminence]

I don't either is as valuable in the hyper-three era. So much of Russell's greatness is situational - the right team in the right era. I think this is KG.

So what's the linking between 1957 and 1969 that made both teams "right" for Russell in comparison to other great players? What made his situation uniquely great against other GOAT candidates?

Red.

Just generally a very high talent level around Bill through his career in large part due to Red being the best GM ever.

[theonlyclutch]

Then we get to international talent. In Russell’s era, this was essentially non-existent. The talent pool didn’t exist because they simply didn’t play basketball, and weren’t going to the NBA.

So, overall you gave us a very solid estimation with solid arguments behind it, but this particular part is just not true. Basketball wasn't as popular in Europe as in the US, but it's not true that people didn't play basketball in the 1950s and 1960s.

Between the rebuilding from WWII, stunted growth from all the malnutrition (kids growing up in wartime environments don't exactly eat well), half the continent being under the Iron Curtain (definitely not coming to capitalist America) teams that operated like this https://from-way-downtown.com/2024/05/19/european-pro-basketball-back-in-the-day-1993/ even into the 90s. As well as football taking predominant headspace (still is, but relatively less so) of all the athletes. None of them translate into realistic cases of basketballers making it into the NBA, and that's even taking into account overseas scouting (there was none).

[lessthanjake]

Similar views for US talent and a good breakdown of why, but I have a lower estimation of international talent (in NBA play at least). My guess was ~33%.

As an example, we had 26 players named allstars this season. 7 were born outside the US. Obviously some big names like Luka/Embiid/etc aren't included, and I think there is a slight bias against international stars in these awards, but 50% still seems high.

2 of those 7 are also not the most internationals of internationals - SGA is from Toronto and Kyrie was born to American parents who were abroad due to playing basketball. Their 60s equivalents may have played in the NBA.

I think this is a fair point. Maybe 50% was not quite right. I don’t really put guys like SGA in the “international” bucket for these purposes. But I also think the cut off for what we’re talking about should probably be more stringent than just all-stars, since we’re talking about where very top-tier players would land. I think international players are more likely to end up playing basketball the better they are (since it starts making less and less sense for them to end up in another sport or to go to the NBA), so we’d expect them to make up a higher percent of the very top guys than they do of the next tier. And I also think very top talent is the most relevant question here, when we are talking about the very top talent in the past. On that front, I think there’s a pretty good argument that 5 of the 10 best players in the NBA are truly international, at least if we assume health: Jokic, Luka, Giannis, Embiid, and Wemby are all top 10 players if everyone is healthy IMO. If we go beyond the top 10, I agree that the international effect gets smaller. And maybe it’s just random that the very top guys are such a high percent international now and perhaps the true number here really should be below 50%. If we instead took your estimate of 33%, then we are probably looking at more like somewhere around 4x more talent these days.

In terms of talent pool for bigs, that's probably more reasonable. Even in the 50s, if you were 6'9 or better, you probably got recruited to play basketball even with no discernable skills. Had a teacher once who was 6'11 and had gotten a couple of short stints in the late 60s/early 70s ABA and he was the very definition of a big clumsy galoot. For smaller guys, you also have the alternative of football (as you do today) and baseball and boxing being bigger draws than they are today so maybe the 5/6x number might be accurate.

Compare to the 9 team league of the first half of the 60s and, thanks to the great slowdown in expansion in this century, the team pool has only increased about 3.5 times (less than double the NBA in 75, not even counting the ABA teams). Once reason I am more impressed with Wilt/Russ/Jerry/Oscar than the stars of the 70s/early 80s.

That’s a good point, but I think the flip side of that is that the same sort of thing is very likely happening nowadays, especially internationally, where bigger international guys are likely filtered to basketball much more than smaller guys are. It honestly may just be the case that, for big men, a higher percent of talents end up playing basketball than for smaller guys, regardless of the era. In which case, this wouldn’t necessarily create any difference between big men and smaller guys in terms of how much more talent there is in the NBA now as compared to back then. The ocean is probably just more boiled for big men across both eras.

Then we get to international talent. In Russell’s era, this was essentially non-existent. The talent pool didn’t exist because they simply didn’t play basketball, and weren’t going to the NBA.

So, overall you gave us a very solid estimation with solid arguments behind it, but this particular part is just not true. Basketball wasn't as popular in Europe as in the US, but it's not true that people didn't play basketball in the 1950s and 1960s.

Well, I don’t mean that they literally did not play basketball, but it wasn’t a popular sport in the rest of the world at the time and people playing it were not ending up in the NBA, which is what matters for purposes of a discussion about talent level in the NBA.

As a sidenote, I know you’re European, but I think you’re significantly younger than me, so I’ll just relay my own personal experience that is at least semi-relevant. I lived in Europe for a while as a kid decades ago (and went to a normal European school, rather than some American international school), and I’ll just say that our school had a basketball hoop outside, so it was technically true that people played basketball. But it was really not popular, to the point where, despite not being a notably talented basketball player by American standards, I could (and did) easily beat other kids like 1 on 5, because they simply had never learned how to make shots or to properly dribble. And I’m not nearly old enough for this to have been anywhere near the 1950s and 1960s, where I assume this would’ve been even more pronounced. I imagine these days this is very different (and, to be fair, it might’ve been different even back then, if I’d been in certain parts of Europe where basketball was already becoming pretty popular when I was a kid).

[70sFan]

It's not 'a fact' that a cat always kills a mouse, it's an opinion. I just wouldn't think much of the person whose opinion was the mouse could win. It's hypothetically possible in theory, but it would never happen.

It's a fact that cats are adapted to hunt and kill mouses, so barring freak occurrence cats should dominate any mouse in the fight. It's not an opinion and your analogy is silly.

In that respect, It's exactly like the idea that Russell would be seen as a top 20 player of all-time if he was teleported to today's league.

No, it's not the same because you are comparing the situation that actually happens consistently in real world and we know the results of such "fights" are extremely one sided with situation that is completely hypothetical and you have no real examples.

You basically put facts (cats kill mouses frequently) with your opinions about time machine arguments on the same level, which is quite telling.

Julius was a better player than Russell,

He certainly didn't prove that at any point of his career.

with a more modern skillset, so of course he's going to have a better chance.

Julius didn't have "modern" game at all, he was very much 1970s player outside of fancy dunks.

Also he's being compared to Wade, who lacks a 3pt shot, which in today's game would reduce his effectiveness significantly.

Julius lack of 3 pointer wouldn't reduce his effectiveness?

[70sFan]

Well, I don’t mean that they literally did not play basketball, but it wasn’t a popular sport in the rest of the world at the time and people playing it were not ending up in the NBA, which is what matters for purposes of a discussion about talent level in the NBA.

Players didn't end up in the NBA for various reasons, but it doesn't mean that the sport wasn't played in Europe.

As a sidenote, I know you’re European, but I think you’re significantly younger than me, so I’ll just relay my own personal experience that is at least semi-relevant. I lived in Europe for a while as a kid decades ago (and went to a normal European school, rather than some American international school), and I’ll just say that our school had a basketball hoop outside, so it was technically true that people played basketball. But it was really not popular, to the point where, despite not being a notably talented basketball player by American standards, I could (and did) easily beat other kids like 1 on 5, because they simply had never learned how to make shots or to properly dribble. And I’m not nearly old enough for this to have been anywhere near the 1950s and 1960s, where I assume this would’ve been even more pronounced. I imagine these days this is very different (and, to be fair, it might’ve been different even back then, if I’d been in certain parts of Europe where basketball was already becoming pretty popular when I was a kid).

Yeah, there are cities where you don't play basketball at all. There are countries when people don't play basketball at all, but that's because Europe isn't one country. In some countries even now you don't see any relevant basketball, while in others it's been pronounced for half a century.

Basketball in Europe was never super popular and it's still in large not that popular, because Europe is football's place, but basketball isn't as popular as football in basically any country outiside of the US (maybe Canada? - correct me if I'm wrong).

[f4p]

5x or 6x just doesn't sound like enough. for one thing, any part of the league that was significantly white was also white american. and white americans make up about 10% of the current nba and, pending chet holmgren and cooper flagg, don't make up any real top tier talent. in other words, the early league was majority coming from a talent pool that literally wasn't even the right talent pool, regardless of population. and i just don't think money can increase in a field like this without a somewhat proportional increase in talent. money brings in not only numbers, but professionalizes those numbers. young kids are putting more effort into becoming nba players than nba players were putting into their offseasons 50 years ago.

things like training and weightlifting allow some guys to catch up to more naturally gifted players and put pressure on everyone to be at top form all the time, even down to lower levels if you want to break through to the next levels.

google says nba revenues were $244M in 1970, inflation adjusted (something like $30M actual). now it's $11B. sure, some of that is cable tv allowing people who aren't physically at a game to contribute to revenue, but that's a 40x increase. if it isn't a 40x increase in the actual numbers of the general public talent pool, i think it's a significant increase in getting every single last person who might not have cared about making 2x the median salary for a 5 year career and then having to figure out what to do with their life back in the 60's and 70's. and it certainly hyper-focuses the development/training of anyone in the pool who actually shows the 0.1% potential to actually make the league. whereas 50 years ago, you probably just did whatever and played in high school and could let your natural talents elevate you about the other 99.9% because no one else was doing any of the training/development guys are doing today so it was just natural talent vs natural talent. now you slack off a little with your natural talent and aren't a top tier prospect and 10 other people dreaming of making 50 million dollars will take your place.

[eminence]

An exercise to go through what a 500% (6x) improved league would look like.

The most average team today by net rating this season, the Sacramento Kings (main starting lineup, though obviously Fox was traded, so you could picture LaVine in his place):
Fox
Monk
DeRozan
Murray
Sabonis

A 1/6th league would have ~25 starter level players, so here are my attempts at 5 balanced lineups with the top 25 players (imo) from 1970, taking Haywood/Barry/Daniels from the ABA (possible others deserved it, but I don't know the league well enough - sorry to Brown/Jones/etc). Not exactly my picks for top 25 - have to make lineups that make sense, but all close to it. Go through for yourself and decide if these lineups are meaningfully more or less talented than the '25 Kings (note: not *good*, *talented*). 1970 versions of all players. I started by putting the top 5 POY vote getters on their own team and then kind of snake drafting from there. Health questions are a bit nebulous, Thurmond/Wilt are notable omissions for health reasons.

Team 1 (Team Kareem)
Flynn Robinson (pick 21)
John Havlicek (pick 10)
Billy Cunningham (pick 11)
Gus Johnson (pick 20)
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (pick 1)

Team 2 (Team West)
Jerry West (pick 2)
Dick Van Arsdale (pick 19)
Tom Van Arsdale (pick 22)
Connie Hawkins (pick 9)
Mel Daniels (pick 12)

Team 3 (Team Reed)
Earl Monroe (pick 18)
Lou Hudson (pick 13)
Rick Barry (pick 8)
Jerry Lucas (pick 23)
Willis Reed (pick 3)

Team 4 (Team Frazier)
Walt Frazier (pick 4)
Joe Caldwell (pick 24)
Chet Walker (pick 14)
Dave DeBusschere (pick 17)
Spencer Haywood (pick 7)

Team 5 (Team Wes)
Oscar Robertson (pick 6)
Hal Greer (pick 25)
Elgin Baylor (pick 16)
Elvin Hayes (pick 15)
Wes Unseld (pick 5)

[eminence]

I'm sure no surprise to anyone, but I'd take the '70 squads pretty clearly as more talented.

So I went back to 1960 and did it as well. Still preferred the '60 squads, added an extra squad and wasn't sure about the 6th squad (led by Hagan), but pretty clearly on average preferred the '60 teams. Took adding a 7th team (led by... Cousy maybe?), and I clearly didn't prefer them or the Hagan squad over the current Kings. The Baylor/Pettit/Schayes led squads were in tossup territory and I clearly preferred the Russell/Wilt squads - in essence, the modern Kings would be a roughly average team (imo) in a 7 squad version of 1960, same as they are in '25.

So my mind was changed based on that, I'm bumping up my assessment to a roughly 4x or 300% increase from 1960 to 2025.

Thanks for making me go back and look at that all

[70sFan]

I'm sure no surprise to anyone, but I'd take the '70 squads pretty clearly as more talented.

So I went back to 1960 and did it as well. Still preferred the '60 squads, added an extra squad and wasn't sure about the 6th squad (led by Hagan), but pretty clearly on average preferred the '60 teams. Took adding a 7th team (led by... Cousy maybe?), and I clearly didn't prefer them or the Hagan squad over the current Kings. The Baylor/Pettit/Schayes led squads were in tossup territory and I clearly preferred the Russell/Wilt squads - in essence, the modern Kings would be a roughly average team (imo) in a 7 squad version of 1960, same as they are in '25.

So my mind was changed based on that, I'm bumping up my assessment to a roughly 4x or 300% increase from 1960 to 2025.

Thanks for making me go back and look at that all

I think the problem is that you assume (rightfully so) that people didn't expand their basketball talent for unknown reasons and that players from the past could quickly adapt to new environment like all people do. Some people here believe that 1960s basketball was full of cavemen that wouldn't be able to grasp the sophistication of 2020s basketball.

[One_and_Done]

Having a jump shot has nothing to do with sophistication. Jeremy Sochan strikes me as a very worldly and sophisticated guy in his interviews. He still can't shoot though.

Bill Russell wouldn't even be top 10 at basketball in today's league. I can't speak to how sophisticated he'd be, but given how his post-playing coaching tenure went I'm not sure he'd rank highly on that front either.

https://www.sacbee.com/sports/nba/sacramento-kings/article264078771.html

He was hired as coach before the 1987-88 season after 10 years away from the bench, signed to a seven-year deal with plans to take over as general manager and then become part owner.

...He quickly realized the job was a massive mountain to climb, a task that would take a ton of effort and probably never pay off, so he checked out.”

...He had a roster of marginal talent, so he grew bored and became detached. He grew alienated with players and staff. He declined to do public functions with the Kings. He didn’t give media interviews or engage with fans.

... Russell would often sip coffee and read the morning paper in the Arco seats while assistant coaches Jerry Reynolds and Willis Reed ran practices. Russell once dozed off in practice. When players snickered, he woke up, lectured them for being so boring that he had to doze, and then threw them out of the gym.

...“I sat next to him for six months — every plane trip, bus ride, pregame meal,” Smith said Sunday on NBATV. “He said, ‘Look at all of these guys. None of them have every won anything!’ He’s screaming this on the bus.”

...Admitted Axelson in 1991, well into retirement, to Dan McGrath of The Bee, “I’ll take the blame for Russ. I was warned that he wouldn’t work hard enough, and that’s exactly why he failed.”

Russell would only say that the losses were like repeated kicks to the stomach. He declined to take any responsibility for the Kings’ failures.

[70sFan]

Having a jump shot has nothing to do with sophistication. Jeremy Sochan strikes me as a very worldly and sophisticated guy in his interviews. He still can't shoot though.

Bill Russell wouldn't even be top 10 at basketball in today's league. I can't speak to how sophisticated he'd be, but given how his post-playing coaching tenure went I'm not sure he'd rank highly on that front either.

https://www.sacbee.com/sports/nba/sacramento-kings/article264078771.html

He was hired as coach before the 1987-88 season after 10 years away from the bench, signed to a seven-year deal with plans to take over as general manager and then become part owner.

...He quickly realized the job was a massive mountain to climb, a task that would take a ton of effort and probably never pay off, so he checked out.”

...He had a roster of marginal talent, so he grew bored and became detached. He grew alienated with players and staff. He declined to do public functions with the Kings. He didn’t give media interviews or engage with fans.

... Russell would often sip coffee and read the morning paper in the Arco seats while assistant coaches Jerry Reynolds and Willis Reed ran practices. Russell once dozed off in practice. When players snickered, he woke up, lectured them for being so boring that he had to doze, and then threw them out of the gym.

...“I sat next to him for six months — every plane trip, bus ride, pregame meal,” Smith said Sunday on NBATV. “He said, ‘Look at all of these guys. None of them have every won anything!’ He’s screaming this on the bus.”

...Admitted Axelson in 1991, well into retirement, to Dan McGrath of The Bee, “I’ll take the blame for Russ. I was warned that he wouldn’t work hard enough, and that’s exactly why he failed.”

Russell would only say that the losses were like repeated kicks to the stomach. He declined to take any responsibility for the Kings’ failures.

Rating Russell's coaching ability on a short comeback in 1988 with one of the worst teams in the league for less than one season is another reason we shouldn't bother with your basketball examination ability.