RealGM Top 100 List -- 2011

[An Unbiased Fan]

We don't know. Maybe Jordan would be a Deron DeRozan today; maybe LeBron or Wade wouldn't be able to adjust to the 60s dribbling rules; maybe Russell's rebounding, defense, and intelligence wouldn't be as effective in the modern era. What we do know is that Russell was the most impactful player in NBA history in the age that he played in. A system that doesn't recognize that needs to be looked at just as when PER rated Ivan Calderon as one of the most impactful players in the NBA that had to be taken with a grain of salt.

I have to disagree. The rules from the 90's are very close to what they are now. The athletic ability of 90's players is close that what we see today. So there is no reason to surmise that MJ would be DeRozan. A player like Kobe who's bodytype/style mirrors MJ, has had no problem bridging the two eras.

And yes, Russell was incredibly impactful....for his era. The issue is whether or not that would translate to other eras at a comparable rate, and there are serious doubts about that. Again, we're talking about a different sets of rules. A smaller lane for most of his career. No 3pt-line which forced action to the middle. Players dribble with one hand, and didn't attack the rim like today. Any of us who have seen video of Russell know his blocks were like a high school kid blocking his little brother.

Like I brought up alot in the Top 100 discussions, Russell is closer to Mikan's era, than he is to even MJ's. It's always interesting how its OK to question Mikan's era, but taboo to do that with Russell. Mikan's era had more rules in common with Russell's, than Russell's to the modern game.

This is sooooo dumb. Josh Smith, Marcus Camby, Ben Wallace, Dennis Rodman, Deandre Jordan...these are some of the players who've been defensively dominating the NBA recently. You think Bill Russell wasn't an order of magnitude better than they are? Smarter than they are? More intense than they are? More skilled as a defender, rebounder, and passer? More athletic? Russell was an Olympics-level athletic specimen. You think Russell couldn't pull off what KG did on defense, have the same impact overall? Wait, what am I saying, you don't think. You are among the laziest thinkers on this forum, and I'm blocking you. Bye!

I actually think Russell would be a great defender in today's game. I just don't think individual defense has nearly as much impact as it did back in the 50's/60's. The other issue it Russell's lack of scoring ability. He would basically be Rodman with an extra inch or two, which is still great, but not GOAT status.

[penbeast0]

Like I brought up alot in the Top 100 discussions, Russell is closer to Mikan's era, than he is to even MJ's. It's always interesting how its OK to question Mikan's era, but taboo to do that with Russell. Mikan's era had more rules in common with Russell's, than Russell's to the modern game.

I would think the 24 second clock and allowing black players are far more impactful even than the failure to enforce the carry rule and the 3 point shot.

[MacGill]

I used a point-based system based on player accomplishments as well as statistical performance. It's weighted slightly more so for actual awards and achievements at the moment. Bill Russell as well as other players from his era are snubbed due to the lack of awards that existed during his era.

What's generally the most common argument for Russell to be #1 or #2 anyway? If we value championships that much, then MJ wouldn't be #1 or #2.

The most common argument for Russell isn't the rings . . . they are results rather than causes . . . it's the defensive impact (including defensive rebounding but mainly team points allowed per possession relative to league average) which is unprecentended and differentiates him more from the norm (or even the second greatest of his era) than any other player in terms of impacting team W/L.

It should be said however, that it's hard to compare Russell's defensive impact to modern day players. Russell wouldn't have had the same defensive impact if he played his whole career in a NBA where players could jump through the roof, and are lightning quick. A NBA with wider lanes, and a 3pt line spacing the action. A NBA where there are more than 8-10 teams.

What would a Hakeem, TD, KG, or even Dwight do back in Russell's era? I would say they would be incredibly imapctful too. Russell however, wouldn't be as imapctful as them in the modern era(IMO).

Where I have completely changed my view on Russell is that he was an absolute innovator in how he played the game and how one could effectively use psychology to beat and break down opponents. You have to be able to wrap your head around what he accomplished regardless of era or competition in his own time. Looking at today to compare back then won't accomplish this and while social times do factor in, the level of dominance in that 11 of 13 years no other professional team could figure out how to beat him and his team with Bill being the defensive anchor through it.

Him not saying, now let me get all the offensive stats, or looking to do more then what he did because it already worked. Keeping the hunger of winning 8 straight times. Even today, we see mentally weak players regardless of how good of an athlete they are or just not being as basketball sound (McGee etc). He had a Bird to his Magic if you will but he made the rivalry much more one sided because he was a basketball genius who could even be a player coach.

You have to respect that, as we have seen far too many talented modern nba teams fall victim to under achieving and some lesser teams win. It takes so much for absolute talent to win, regardless of how easy the team may make it look.

[TrueLAfan]

It’s interesting…we have someone somewhat close—on paper--to Russell playing this year. His name is Joakim Noah. Noah is one inch taller than Russell (6’10.5” to 6’9.5”). They’re similar in weight. Noah shoots slightly better than Russell (but not as well relative to the league). Noah scores at a similar rate. Noah is an excellent passer for his position, as Russell was. Noah is an excellent rebounder, as Russell was. Noah is a terrific defender.

Of course, there are differences. Russell is actually about 10% better on the boards, and is a better passer. Noah does shoot better—about 4% better compared to Russell’s career average. I’d also say Russell is a better shot blocker. All in all, I’d go with Bill Russell being slightly better, on paper, than, Joakim Noah. It’s close. But this is leaving out leadership and mental toughness, which are strengths of Russell.

So, anyway, maybe I’ve missed something—but isn’t Joakim Noah kind of a sleeper candidate for MVP this season? I sure hear a lot about him being a “candidate” and “in the conversation” now. So since I have a hard time saying Noah is better than Russell in any way (other than shooting percentage); doesn’t that mean that Bill Russell would be a “candidate” and “in the conversation” for MVP today too? Considering non-statistical factors as well—leadership, mental toughness—wouldn’t he likely be a *better* candidate than Noah? Is someone going to say that Bill Russell couldn’t duplicate Joakim Noah’s impact? Trade the 48% sooting for 45% shooting and an extra board and a half a game, and more blocked shots? Better passing? And more leadership? And didn’t he play like this for … well, a while? Over a dozen years? Up until the end of the 1960s? So I’m not clear on how Bill Russell “wouldn’t translate” or how “individual defense isn’t as important” when talking about how he would impact a game, today or at any time.

[colts18]

Of course, there are differences. Russell is actually about 10% better on the boards, and is a better passer.

Where is the evidence for that? Noah is a better passer than Russell

[Quotatious]

Where is the evidence for that? Noah is a better passer than Russell

There's no way to know that, because of how little footage we have of Russell. I think it's best to just assume that both are elite passing bigmen, and put them as equals in this regard.

[euroleague]

Where is the evidence for that? Noah is a better passer than Russell

There's no way to know that, because of how little footage we have of Russell. I think it's best to just assume that both are elite passing bigmen, and put them as equals in this regard.

because Russell didn't assist that much... he just didn't shoot much and played 48 mins/game. his per36 is 3.5 for his career....
noah right now is 5.3/36.

[Quotatious]

APG aren't always a good measure of passing ability - it depends on a role a player has on a team - for example, do you really think that Wilt's passing ability all of a sudden increased three or four times during his 1967 and 1968 seasons, compared to earlier in his career, and KG's declined two and a half/three times during his stint in Boston, compared to Minnesota, when he averaged 5-6 APG?

APG skew the perception of passing ability, especially among bigmen, but even perimeter players - for example, Manu Ginobili or Chris Mullin (even Larry Bird) were all superb passers, and the first two guys averaged just about 3-4 APG, but their passing ability was good enough for them to average twice as many. Bird still averaged over 6 APG for his career, but he's been frequently called "one of the best passers ever", and watching games, it's not far from the truth.

Besides, I don't think pace-translation of numbers put up by 60s players, adjusted to today's pace is accurate. I don't think it is, because it needs to be mentioned that the game was different enough in the 60s that these players would have to play differently in today's league. Another example - players in the 60s ran up and down the court a lot more than today's players, and put up a lot more bad, unprepared shots from bizarre angles (basically all players were shooting Kobe-like shots on a regular basis) - today, they'd just be coached differently, and in a game which champions efficiency, like today, their approach would just be different. Red Auerbach had a lot to do with that approach - his teams were somewhat challenged offensively, so he decided that they had to attempt more shots, and outrun their opponents to have a chance to win - and the results were obviously phenomenal, but by today's standards, it'd be perceived as a really horrible chucking and fudnamentally unsound play.

[The Infamous1]

It's very hard for me to find a scenario where russell wins mvp in today's game

[therealbig3]

A better version of Noah isn't coming close to winning MVP in today's league. LeBron and Durant are clearly superior players. Only reason Noah is mentioned as a candidate for MVP is because people are bored of talking about LeBron and Durant...in reality, Noah isn't an MVP candidate, just like anyone outside of LeBron and Durant isn't an MVP candidate. Nobody is on their level right now.

And as for that, a better version of Noah isn't coming close to challenging a peak Duncan or a peak Garnett for MVP, either.

[landooo]

A and put up a lot more bad, unprepared shots from bizarre angles (basically all players were shooting Kobe-like shots on a regular basis) -

Those aren't Kobe-like shots. Try again.

[ardee]

If we're doing it again this summer we need to start organizing it.

[penbeast0]

(a) Red's strategy wasn't quite as stupid as it looks today. He tended to recruit very good and deep benches relative to his main opponents. If you can force the pace, the bench plays a bigger role . . . that and Russell and Havilcek had notoriously good motors so they could still play big minutes.

(b) Russell isn't a better version of Noah, at worst he's a better version of Ben Wallace who was a more impactful player than Noah. Think of a consistent DPOY (or DPOY candidate) with a rep for high basketball intelligence and who consistently leads the league in rebounds and blocked shots while generating the best defense in the league despite having primarily offensively focused personnel around him and with some scoring ability (more like 10-12 ppg on not great efficiency but not Ben Wallace level terrible) and you probably have a better idea of Russell today. Would he get MVP over LeBron and Durant if he went to a team like Milwaukee and immediately led them into serious title contention for the next 13 years? Maybe . . . but then Wilt and even Oscar won MVPs during Russell's dominant reign as it was.

[therealbig3]

(a) Red's strategy wasn't quite as stupid as it looks today. He tended to recruit very good and deep benches relative to his main opponents. If you can force the pace, the bench plays a bigger role . . . that and Russell and Havilcek had notoriously good motors so they could still play big minutes.

(b) Russell isn't a better version of Noah, at worst he's a better version of Ben Wallace who was a more impactful player than Noah. Think of a consistent DPOY (or DPOY candidate) with a rep for high basketball intelligence and who consistently leads the league in rebounds and blocked shots while generating the best defense in the league despite having primarily offensively focused personnel around him and with some scoring ability (more like 10-12 ppg on not great efficiency but not Ben Wallace level terrible) and you probably have a better idea of Russell today. Would he get MVP over LeBron and Durant if he went to a team like Milwaukee and immediately led them into serious title contention for the next 13 years? Maybe . . . but then Wilt and even Oscar won MVPs during Russell's dominant reign as it was.

And yet, Ben Wallace wasn't CLOSE to an MVP-caliber player at his absolute peak. Give him some improved scoring and passing ability to the point where he's not the worst offensive player in the league, but still probably an offensive liability because of his lack of range and his poor FT shooting, probably even better defense (albeit slightly), and was Ben Wallace still going to ever be considered on Duncan's level? Garnett's level? Those guys were legitimate MVPs, Ben Wallace was never considered close. He compared to them defensively, and that's where the comparison ended.

The common theme here is this: if you're a big man and you want to be mentioned in the same breath as the superstar wings in today's game, you need to bring it on BOTH ends of the court. Yes, I know that Duncan and Garnett still overwhelmingly had most of their impact on defense...but they've also anchored good offenses, and they've also been fantastic 2nd and 3rd options on good offenses, and they both had the ability to self-create and score efficiently. They were two of the best passing bigs ever. They were excellent in the PnR/PnP. They were excellent finishers around the rim, especially Duncan. They were both good FT shooters, especially KG. Offensively, there wasn't much more they could do for a team as a big man, unless they wanted to be Shaq, which neither had the physical ability for. Their offensive abilities, combined with their dominant defense, allowed them to be MVPs. It allowed them to be viewed as the best players in the game. And that STILL might not have been enough today...current LeBron and Durant are probably still superior to peak Duncan and peak Garnett.

Because I like to bring up Duncan and Garnett, because they're an easier comparison to make to Russell...how much better is Russell going to be defensively than those two in an era of much smarter offensive basketball and the 3pt line? Even his biggest supporters admit that the 3pt line would have drastically reduced his effectiveness. I just can't see him blowing them out of the water as the stats would suggest he did in his time. And offensively, how close is Russell going to get to them? Even if we give him a huge benefit of the doubt, can we really say for sure that he's going to be the efficient, low to mid 20s volume scorers that Duncan and Garnett were able to be as the focal points of their teams' offense? Can we really say for sure that he's going to be able to hit the jumper the way Duncan and especially Garnett were able to? Can we really say for sure that he's going to improve his FT shooting (I don't see why he would get the benefit of the doubt here anyway) to the point where you can't just send him to the line in a late-game situation, because he's probably going to make them, like it was the case with Duncan and especially Garnett?

Assuming Russell's impact would have still been transcendent and enough to compare to the MVPs of today requires a massive leap in faith in terms of how he would have adjusted his offense imo.

[NaturalBuns]

How is deron williams on that list.

[Quotatious]

How is deron williams on that list.

If there's one active player who won't make it the next time we vote on that, it's Deron. He hasn't really added anything significant to his resume since 2011, and even though his prime in Utah was pretty impressive, his longevity as a real star is clearly lacking.

[ThaRegul8r]

(a) Red's strategy wasn't quite as stupid as it looks today. He tended to recruit very good and deep benches relative to his main opponents. If you can force the pace, the bench plays a bigger role . . . that and Russell and Havilcek had notoriously good motors so they could still play big minutes.

(b) Russell isn't a better version of Noah, at worst he's a better version of Ben Wallace who was a more impactful player than Noah. Think of a consistent DPOY (or DPOY candidate) with a rep for high basketball intelligence and who consistently leads the league in rebounds and blocked shots while generating the best defense in the league despite having primarily offensively focused personnel around him and with some scoring ability (more like 10-12 ppg on not great efficiency but not Ben Wallace level terrible) and you probably have a better idea of Russell today. Would he get MVP over LeBron and Durant if he went to a team like Milwaukee and immediately led them into serious title contention for the next 13 years? Maybe . . . but then Wilt and even Oscar won MVPs during Russell's dominant reign as it was.

And yet, Ben Wallace wasn't CLOSE to an MVP-caliber player at his absolute peak. Give him some improved scoring and passing ability to the point where he's not the worst offensive player in the league, but still probably an offensive liability because of his lack of range and his poor FT shooting, probably even better defense (albeit slightly), and was Ben Wallace still going to ever be considered on Duncan's level? Garnett's level? Those guys were legitimate MVPs, Ben Wallace was never considered close. He compared to them defensively, and that's where the comparison ended.

I recall Wallace being discussed as an MVP candidate at one point (not home with my notes at the moment) both by players and writers, but it was said it would take a fundamental change in the public perception of how players were evaluated in order for him to win. I remember Sports Illustrated actually did have Wallace as their MVP at the midway point of one season, and I remember another article in which the author argued Wallace was the MVP of the league.

But it's more acceptable for a player to be defensively deficient and still be a potential MVP so long as he's above the acceptable level of offense than for a player to be defensively dominant yet below the offensive threshold. The league values offense (they're on record as deliberately monkeying with the rules for over a decade in order to get the offense they wanted), offense is what garners the attention of fans, and the league stepped in and intervened when defense was getting too dominant (in the case of the Detroit Pistons).

[Warspite]

lets not forget that Russell won his MVPs by player vote and not media. In todays corrupt media world Russell might not fair as well but if the players voted maybe the votes would look differently.

[Owly]

lets not forget that Russell won his MVPs by player vote and not media. In todays corrupt media world Russell might not fair as well but if the players voted maybe the votes would look differently.

Getting off topic but Russell actually didn't win as many of the media-vote MVPs. Russell was first team All-NBA three times (down from 5 player vote MVPs). And so far as we know he collared just two Metropolitan Sportwriters Sam Davis Memorial Award MVPs (we don't have the winners for '64 or '66 but given he didn't the official MVP, any other known MVP or first team all-NBA in either year it's unlikely he collared either of those two). He did however win the United States Basketball Writers MVP in each year he got the official MVP (apart from '58 when the USBW award didn't exist).

cf: http://www.apbr.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4421
http://www.apbr.org/nbamvps.html

[Warspite]

lets not forget that Russell won his MVPs by player vote and not media. In todays corrupt media world Russell might not fair as well but if the players voted maybe the votes would look differently.

Getting off topic but Russell actually didn't win as many of the media-vote MVPs. Russell was first team All-NBA three times (down from 5 player vote MVPs). And so far as we know he collared just two Metropolitan Sportwriters Sam Davis Memorial Award MVPs (we don't have the winners for '64 or '66 but given he didn't the official MVP, any other known MVP or first team all-NBA in either year it's unlikely he collared either of those two). He did however win the United States Basketball Writers MVP in each year he got the official MVP (apart from '58 when the USBW award didn't exist).

cf: http://www.apbr.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4421
http://www.apbr.org/nbamvps.html

That voting was before watergate so I fail to see how it has any bearing on todays media. Todays media cares about being popular or selling books. It tries to know about more subjects but knows less about each one. It sees the world much differently than it is and whatever it sees it believes that it is the medias job to change it.

I have read that pretty much people were split between Russell/Wilt and that they liked to make 1 the MVP and the other 1st all NBA. The simple fact that people were split on Russell vs Wilt is extremely impressive IMHO because I dont think any player was as good as Wilt.