Dr Positivity wrote:I agree to an extent therealbig3 but I think Russell still had the most perfect defensive body and most perfect defensive mind in history of C position, so to me it would probably translate to other eras, even if not at the impact he had in the 60s. I think there's a valid argument to be made Hakeem, Garnett, Robinson, Duncan are possibly as good as defensive players as Russell if playing in another era, and thus above him at their peaks when taking into account offense
therealbig3 wrote:But haven't we seen guys with a combination of the best of Garnett (mobility and intelligence) and the best of Mutombo (shot blocking and timing) in more recent times: Hakeem Olajuwon and David Robinson? I'd throw Duncan in that group, even if his mobility might have been the weakest between him, Garnett, Hakeem, and Robinson, and it's not like he was a sloth in his prime. Even Garnett himself was a bit of a shot blocker during his prime...he averaged over 1 bpg, peaking at 2.2 bpg, every year for the first 14 years of his career. Since then, he's still averaged 0.9 bpg, despite a noticeable reduction in mpg.
Even so, let's look at Hakeem and Robinson, who are the two most obvious comparisons to Russell defensively, when you look at their combination of mobility, athleticism, rim protection, and ability to force TOs. As far as their intelligence, both of those guys were considered two of the most intelligent defensive players of their era as well, Hakeem especially.
So Hakeem and Robinson seemed to have mastered the horizontal and vertical aspects of defense as well, and were as good at that as anyone ever. And I can guarantee that they still would not have been considered best in the game caliber players (and neither would have Duncan or Garnett) if they weren't also high-caliber offensive big men as well.
These were both interesting posts, from posters I really respect, so I certainly understand your argument. And I'm not even going to push back (too hard) against your logic and the conclusions you come to, except in this way:
On the continuum of those 4 players, I think that Garnett is pretty clearly the most mobile (granting that all are more mobile than the vast, vast majority of 7-footers) and that either Hakeem or Robinson likely the best leapers. All of them, plus Duncan, constitute some of the best combos of size, athleticism and intelligence that we've seen in the "Russell mold" of a defensive big man in the modern NBA.
The thing that I was trying to get across in my last post, though, is that Russell quite arguably blows them out of the water as athletes. The arguments that both of you make rely on these four being approximate to Russell on defense in the modern game. And maybe they are. But the other possibility is...
I mentioned that Russell was an Olympic caliber high-jumper. I came across another quote (from Havlicek, I believe) speaking on Russell also being an unbelievable sprinter (on the order of 13s seconds in the sprint hurdles). It's hard to quantify just exactly how fast Russell was, but I'm open to the possibility that his mobility and quickness might not have been "just" excellent for a big man...he very well may have had LeBron-type speed. And when you factor in the world class high jumping, he very well may have had LeBron leaping ability as well.
I guess my point is, Garnett/Hakeem/Robinson/Duncan kind of define our upper limit as far as the mobile, athletic, defensive monster big man of the modern era. But we've seen really big guys with absurd hops in recent years (Kemp, early Amare, Howard, Griffin) and now we're seeing just how absurd that kind of athleticism is in a Karl Malone-like body type with LeBron. Physically, if Russell's body was essentially similar to KG/Hakeem/Robinson/Duncan but his athleticism was on the order of LeBron, that opens the possibility that his defensive impact might translate much more faithfully to this era than we think. That, defensively, he might be as far beyond the best of this era as he was beyond the best of his era.
Just some food for thought.
