RealGM

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.

Bill Russel was listed at 6'10 in 1968 the other starting Centers were

76ers - 7'1
Knicks - 6'11
Pistons 6'10
Royals 6'9
Bullets 6'10
Hawks - 6'9
Lakers 6'10
Warriors 6'11
Bulls 6'8
Sonics 6'9
Rockets 6'9

So more than half the Centers in the NBA were the same height or taller.

I do agree that the league was weaker back then but Russell was still a monstrous player.

He would give you Hakeem+ defense with GOAT rebounding and he was probably the best "leader" ever a guy who could honestly coach a team on or off the floor.

Add to that his BBIQ and other intangibles and you have a pretty scary player.
He definitely belongs somewhere in the Top 10.

CaliBullsFan wrote:Bill Russel was listed at 6'10 in 1968 the other starting Centers were

76ers - 7'1
Knicks - 6'11
Pistons 6'10
Royals 6'9
Bullets 6'10
Hawks - 6'9
Lakers 6'10
Warriors 6'11
Bulls 6'8
Sonics 6'9
Rockets 6'9

So more than half the Centers in the NBA were the same height or taller.

Were all those guys playing 30+ mpg?
I remember reading that in 1962 there were only like one or two C's above 6'8 or 6'9 who played 20+mpg.

If you rank your all time lists based on how they were within their respective eras, you can't *not* have him in that discussion. Things look different if the conversation turns to "how would ____ do in today's NBA?"

How do you explain such a low FG for a guy who basically played at the rim? Watch the clips--if anything he had more of a relative height/wingspan advantage than any modern centers, yet he has a FG% that approaches that of an average SG at best. He didn't shoot any better during the playoffs either.

I think the point on how would he perform in the NBA today is a good one and maybe that's what I am getting at. If you're a GOAT, you should be able to play with anyone in any era. You also have to adjust for the fact that you don't have institutional barriers that limited the quality of talent that existed in the 1960s.

I also think it's somewhat misleading that people think it was remarkable that he was a player-coach during some of his career--given the fact that there was almost no strategy or set plays and Red Auerbach put on him on relatively stacked teams, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Auerbach. Also keep in mind that Red was successful after Russell left. Russell may have been a part of it, but Red wouldn't be famous for the "no color barrier" if people back then were open-minded and selected the best players. By definition racism not only meant that the competition to enter the NBA was weaker than it is today, but any team smart enough to select African-Americans could gain a significant advantage. Not to mention the fact that Red pulled a lot of shady s** that would never fly today such as clogging the toilets and screwing with the radiators, http://espn.go.com/page2/s/rosen/021205.html.

No one is saying that Russell wasn't a good player or one of the best in his era, however, it's complete nonsense to say that he is in the same discussion as modern big men given his relative lack of strength (listed at 6'10, 215) and poor shooting.

Babe Ruth played in a league that didn't even let in black players and he's still considered one if not the GOAT mlb player.

People can't simply use the excuse of competition when it comes to the legends of the sports and that goes for all the majors.

I'm sure in 50-100 years the players in the NBA at that time will make the competition MJ played against look like a potential joke, but he should still be seen as a respective giant of the game by that point.

D.Brasco wrote:Babe Ruth played in a league that didn't even let in black players and he's still considered one if not the GOAT mlb player.

People can't simply use the excuse of competition when it comes to the legends of the sports and that goes for all the majors.

I'm sure in 50-100 years the players in the NBA at that time will make the competition MJ played against look like a potential joke, but he should still be seen as a respective giant of the game by that point.

Not sure I agree.
If an older player has tangibal advantages compared to more modern players due to differences in rules, competition or anything else then it seems valid to bring it up if you are directly comparing those two players (the older one and the modern one).

If there was a hypothetical future league where rules are much harder but someone still dominates like Jordan then it wouldn't seem wrong to say "hey this guy is better then Jordan".
Sometimes the young surpass the old.
People don't complain much when Mikan is ranked very low even though he dominated "his era" more then almost anyone else has dominated theirs.

Everything's like this, things start from being simple with low talent, develop, evolve and becomes complicated with high talent. Some get eliminated along the way. He was a legend then, if he's born now, he would play differently. People are appreciative what he has done for the game.

therealozzykhan wrote: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%.

Well, you have to consider that the measurements with player back in those days were w/o shoes, while that isn't the case for most players today (though there are exceptions, like Durant, Iverson, Garnett, even McGrady, etc.).

Also, the game was played at a much faster pace in contrast to today's game. In the 1960s, seven of the nine seasons that Russell played had the NBA teams put up over 100 FGA's a game! the other two seasons were 99.8 (essentially 100 when rounded) and 99.1. The past seven seasons in the league have involved players only putting up FG attempts in the 80-83 per game range. Due to the faster pace and the higher ppg per nba team (no season avg. for the league was under 110 ppg in the 1960s), hints to the rebound numbers for the players of that era, not because of the lack of height of the players (at least you didn't go with the typical detracting statement of "Wilt and Russell only played against 6-5 white guys").

Here's a link that can help you get a better idea. http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html

therealozzykhan wrote:2) Players didn't have anywhere near the athleticism and ball control of athletes today. There is no 1960s Russell Westbrook.

Russell Westbrook is a freak athlete no matter what era you use. Don't use outliers to make your case; it makes you appear as if you can't make a good argument against those that are cognizant of such fallacies.

therealozzykhan wrote:3) The game was way less complex. You basically have the same level of sophistication in 1960 that you get in high school today.

Based on what? One can easily say that the players of today would struggle due to the pace and the enforcing of rules such as traveling and carrying the basketball i.e. palming. Surely you have something more tenable than your misguided conjectures? I will agree that defenses etc, are less complex due to the lack of the three point shot, etc., but the comparison to high school basketball is insulting.

therealozzykhan wrote: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.

No, a 10 second shot clock means that they would have played even faster and missed even more shots.

therealozzykhan wrote:5) You had fewer teams and (relatively) he played on a stacked Celtics team.

I wouldn't disagree with the talent pool being smaller, but talent was more condensed onto teams than today due to the number of teams, too.

therealozzykhan wrote: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.

Again, outliers like Hakeem don't work in your favor.


I'm not as knowledgeable as some of the other posters here, so I cannot speak anymore than I have. But using the best of the best to compare with the average player of the 1960s in terms of athleticism and even skill to an extent is as bad as complaining about today's music being horrible by comparing John Coltrane and Miles Davis to Miley Cyrus and Iggy Azalea.

Why are you judging by eras?

If John Stockton was in today's league he wouldn't be near Westbrook and Curry because of their elite skillset.
If Charles Barkley was in today's league he would be shunned like J-Smoove because of his shooting.
If Robert Pack had declared for the 2014 Draft he'd be a lottery pick simply because of his athleticism.

We are in a league where the two of the top five young centers (Deandre Jordan and Andre Drummond) in the NBA are historically bad offensive players and shady defensive IQ.

Just 10 years ago we had a 6-9 center lockdown the 2nd most dominant player in NBA History post-1986. Ben Wallace's offensive wasn't any better than the big men in today's era, but his IQ defensively lead to him receiving not 1, not 2, not 3, but FOUR DPOY awards in 5 seasons.

Witzig-Okashi wrote:......is as bad as complaining about today's music being horrible by comparing John Coltrane and Miles Davis to Miley Cyrus and Iggy Azalea.

Mind explaining a bit?

therealozzykhan wrote:post in general

This debate already happened over the summer, covering a lot of the points you bring up. Feel free to read:

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1330968

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1332342

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1331477

therealozzykhan wrote: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/.

Michael Rapport got a lot of hate for going on a racist, sexist, profanity-laden incoherent tirade and directly insulting several influential members of the sports media. So to start, your source isn't very credible.

therealozzykhan wrote: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.

Few things: most great players, in any era, are taller and more athletic than their competition. That's a big part of what makes them great players.

And the quality of the league is really only relevant if you're arguing that he wouldn't be as dominant in the modern era. Which is fine, and I maybe agree a little bit, but ultimately that should be a pretty small part of how you evaluate a play holistically. After all, he was born when he was born, and dominated the best players under the rules and strategies that were in front of him, so that's the brunt of what he did. And it's important to note that we're talking about actual, physical things that happened, and can't be swept under the rug simply because they may or may not have happened today.

I'm going to take you point-by-point on this next section, because I believe a lot of this is misguided:

therealozzykhan wrote: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.

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.

therealozzykhan wrote:2) Players didn't have anywhere near the athleticism and ball control of athletes today. There is no 1960s Russell Westbrook.

Well, Oscar Robertson? He's also a top 15 all-time great for most.

therealozzykhan wrote:3) The game was way less complex. You basically have the same level of sophistication in 1960 that you get in high school today.

addressed above. It was the highest level of basketball he could play at the time. He was born in 1934, what exactly do you want him to do?

therealozzykhan wrote: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.

We have some excellent posters on this board have painstakingly calculated rebound percentage (that is, the percentage of total team rebounds grabbed by the player in question). While it's an estimate, it's pace adjusted so we can sort of compare with modern players and Russell comes out looking like a GOAT still.

viewtopic.php?f=344&t=955514

therealozzykhan wrote:5) You had fewer teams and (relatively) he played on a stacked Celtics team.

Okay, but really nowhere near as stacked as we'd expect an 11-time title winner to be. they were never a great offensive team, they won with their absurdly brilliant (and this is not hyperbole, we'll never see a team so far ahead of the rest of the league) defense, of which Russell was the biggest determinant.

therealozzykhan wrote: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.

We know Russell's not a great offensive player. That doesn't stop plenty on here from thinking he's the best ever.

therealozzykhan wrote: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.

Only if you had a time machine. if Scal was born 60 years earlier, then there's really no way this theory could be true. So it's pretty immaterial to the overall argument.

Well, you have to consider that the measurements with player back in those days were w/o shoes, while that isn't the case for most players today (though there are exceptions, like Durant, Iverson, Garnett, even McGrady, etc.).

Also, the game was played at a much faster pace in contrast to today's game. In the 1960s, seven of the nine seasons that Russell played had the NBA teams put up over 100 FGA's a game! the other two seasons were 99.8 (essentially 100 when rounded) and 99.1. The past seven seasons in the league have involved players only putting up FG attempts in the 80-83 per game range. Due to the faster pace and the higher ppg per nba team (no season avg. for the league was under 110 ppg in the 1960s), hints to the rebound numbers for the players of that era, not because of the lack of height of the players (at least you didn't go with the typical detracting statement of "Wilt and Russell only played against 6-5 white guys").

Here's a link that can help you get a better idea. http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... stats.html

Wilt Chamberlain took more shots and had a ton of boards and still managed to shoot well over 50%, Russell Westbrook is a freak athlete no matter what era you use. Don't use outliers to make your case; it makes you appear as if you can't make a good argument against those that are cognizant of such fallacies.

Russell Westbrook is a freak athlete no matter what era you use. Don't use outliers to make your case; it makes you appear as if you can't make a good argument against those that are cognizant of such fallacies.

Russell Westbrook might be more athletic than most, but the point is that there is no equivalent in the 1960s. Derrick Rose (pre-injury), John Wall, Kyrie Irving, Demar Derozan...there are lots of people that would be well above the levels of the their counterparts in that era.

Based on what? One can easily say that the players of today would struggle due to the pace and the enforcing of rules such as traveling and carrying the basketball i.e. palming. Surely you have something more tenable than your misguided conjectures? I will agree that defenses etc, are less complex due to the lack of the three point shot, etc., but the comparison to high school basketball is insulting.

Watch the film? What shouts complex about the plays that were run? Part of the reason they took so many shots was because they took so many bad ones. You also didn't have the film available to study that exists today, nor did people spend the time refining their games (especially since many players had to hold other jobs).

I wouldn't disagree with the talent pool being smaller, but talent was more condensed onto teams than today due to the number of teams, too.

There are two factors at play here: first, the pool of players was still limited due to the issues around race at that time (so even if the proportion of available players is relatively the same it is from a less competitive and diverse pool due to racial exclusion); second, the talent around Russell was more concentrated because Red was willing to draft anyone regardless of race--so even if the you have the same proportion of good players, Russell was more likely to be paired with the best ones because other teams considered race a factor when building their teams.

Again, outliers like Hakeem don't work in your favor.


I'm not as knowledgeable as some of the other posters here, so I cannot speak anymore than I have. But using the best of the best to compare with the average player of the 1960s in terms of athleticism and even skill to an extent is as bad as complaining about today's music being horrible by comparing John Coltrane and Miles Davis to Miley Cyrus and Iggy Azalea.

The average player in the 1960s was worse than the average player of today--but I am comparing Russell to Hakeem--it should be outlier to outlier. Every GOAT is, by definition, an outlier. Look at Duncan's footwork, which is far superior. Hell Marc Gasol is a great player, but not on anyone's radar as a goat, but still has great footwork for a big guy, http://www.basketballinsiders.com/nba-s ... arc-gasol/.

The music comparison is also false equivalence--this is a matter of personal taste as opposed to a comparison of skill. You're comparing pop stars who follow a formula to people who play instruments, which requires significantly more skill. Miley Cyrus and Iggy Azalea are entertainers--no one would argue that they are phenomenally talented musicians, nor is that how they make a living. No one would argue that the Monkeys were skilled musicians but they sold a lot of records in the 1960s and that who you would compare to Miley Cyrus. In addition the musical comparison (of skill) is easier because the piano, trumpet, drums, etc. are essentially unchanged during that time period.

I will say that basketball in 1960 was atrocious and hard to watch--and the players were less skilled than the players of today. How can anyone watch clips of the 1960s and say that it was anything but a nightmare to watch?

I definitely agree that Russell is extremely overratd because people go out of their way to create double standards to prop him up. The same people who heavily incorporate the bevy of statistical transparency availible for modern players, the same people who will tell you that rings don't matter will be the same dudes who will swear by having Russ in their top 3. It's become kind of a hipster thing to overrate old players again. Back then they were overrated because no one took into account the pace they played at, then they became underrated with dudes popping up who will tell you that Wilt is not a top 10 player and now they're overrated again.

Dr Spaceman gave the best possible answer to that ridiculous OP.

As to the idea that posters go to extremes to create double standards for him? I mean I guess its possible someone does that, but I think a more likely explanation is that you have to use different means to judge players from the 60s. Now Im not one of these guys you mention because I dont believe the modern stats are frankly as transparent as some think. But I am one who thinks Russell is the GOAT.

I don't care about time machine stuff and its literally impossible to know how he would turn out if he was born in 1966 or 1986. Just like its impossible to know how Westbrook, White Mamba, others mentioned in the thread would turn out if they were born prior to WWII. I don't waste much time trying to make those conjectures. Plenty of smarter guys in the room than me who feel confident in doing so, but it holds no meaning to me.

So when I see a guy whose team dominated like no team ever has or likely ever will, and that pretty much all his peers, opposing coaches, and media of the day recognized that he was the primary reason why, well that's a pretty good starting place for GOAT talk. Add in his GOAT rebounding, his GOAT defense(which btw went against all conventional wisdom at the time--he wasn't just beating short, slow white guys because he was a superior athlete, tho he was a great athlete, he completely changed how defense was played. He was both an elite vertical and horizontal defender. All the "middle linebacker" stuff KG brought combined with the greatest shot blockers ever.

I think for most people, a guy needs to be a great offensive player to be GOAT and maybe they are right. But I don't care how a player is impacting his team in terms of wins and championships. If he does it like Mike--great. Or Duncan? Sure I'll take that. Or Jabbar or Bird or KG or Admiral or Magic or..... Greatness comes in all forms and Mr. William Russell is one of those forms--and I don't have to stretch to see it.

In-era Russell is obviously one of the best and it's only fair to compare him to those players but I'm sick of people overrating his actual game.

Horrible scorer (not an understatement, especially considering the "defenses" he went up against) and his GOAT shotblocking is overstated. He was way ahead of his time in terms of anticipation and how to properly block shots but it's easier to do so when your opponents are much inferior athletically, millions of possessions in a game, no 3-sec rule whatsoever and horrible shot selection.

I do have him in my Top 3 btw. All I'm saying is that the dude ain't got close to the game today's ATGs or Wilt as an in-era reference point do have.

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.

Also, not to spam quotes (thanks to ThaRegul8r for help finding these), but mobility wouldn't be an issue with Russell (Dipper also has some good footage of his insane recovery ability I believe):

"With Russell," said Hayes "you never know what to expect. He has such great lateral movement. He's always got an angle on you. He told me that he can take just two steps and block a shot from any position on the court. I remember the first time I was matched up against him. I was out in the corner and he was under the basket. I figured it was safe to shoot. But as I went up, there he was, tipping the shot.
(Pat Putnam, “Big E For Elvin's Two Big Efforts: His coach didn't let him go head-to-head with Chamberlain and Russell on successive nights, but Hayes wowed 'em anyway.” Sports Illustrated. Nov. 25, 1968. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm)

“Bill’s great mobility enabled him to block jump shots all over the court.”
— Pete Newell

“Russell would chase you everywhere. I’ve taken 20-footers that were blocked by Russell.”
— Johnny Kerr

“Bill Russell used to be able to go out and block shots. You’ve got to differentiate that from Wilt Chamberlain, who would block the shots coming to the basket, but Russell would go out and deter you from shooting.”
— Marty Blake, NBA Director of Scouting Services

“He was a unique defensive player because he could literally come out and play a guard or forward. Most centers can’t do that. Even today, there is no way that they can play guards, but he could do that.”
— Jerry West

“[H]e could go out and defend out on the perimeter, which seems to be a lost art today.”
— Marty Blake

“I’ve seen him come out and pick up players like Neil Johnston and Bob Pettit. He doesn’t stand in one spot.”
— Jacko Collins, supervisor of NBA officials

“He was so […] quick off the ball that he could double-team and trap you at a moment’s notice or jump out to help a defender on a pick and roll.”
— Oscar Robertson, The Big O: My Life, My Times, My Game, p. 142

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

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.