ElGee wrote:At the same time, I think it is fair to argue that to reach great heights on defense pre-3-pointer required more interior post dominance (i.e. Russell) and to do it post 3-point-line required better team/perimeter defense (Knicks, Celtics, Pistons, etc.). Outlier-ness aside, this explanation supports both Russell's in-era dominance (that would absolutely be freakish as an individual) and a diminished impact as an individual defender in the 3-pt era (really in the 3-pt happy era).
Then again, I've yet to see a compelling, coherent explanation for why you should play "transport era" game...
Well, I'm not trying to play the "transport era" game...I believe fatal9 explained my viewpoint better than I could...it's moreso putting his impact in context. As you yourself said in that first paragraph...Russell played at a time where interior post dominance had a far greater defensive impact than in the post-3pt era, so someone like Russell would obviously be INCREDIBLE in that case, unlike anything else we've seen.
What I want to make sure of is that I'm not punishing later players who have also shown the ability to be dominant interior defenders, just because they were born later and played during a time where perimeter defense and overall team defense played a bigger role...basically, a dominant interior defender won't have the same impact now as he would have had in the 60s. Isn't it a little unfair to then dock someone like Hakeem, or in other words, prop up someone like Russell over Hakeem, when Hakeem didn't play in the same defensive environment as Russell? Especially if we then consider the offensive side of the ball, where Hakeem was undoubtedly more effective, regardless of the context of their eras.
Seems weird to say about a black man during the 50s and 60s, but specifically with regards to when he was able to play basketball, I think Russell was a little luckier compared to later defensive anchors.