Michael Jordan vs Bill Russell

[uberhikari]

Here's something I haven't thought about before. I remember in the all-time list seeing some crazy defensive stats for Russell. But most people don't perceive him as being statistically dominant because of his somewhat mediocre offense.

Is there an argument to be made that Bill Russell, in his era, was more dominant on defense than Michael Jordan, in his era, was on offense?

[Dutchball97]

Yeah, I don't think anyone has been able to produce more value on just one side of the ball than Russell on defense.

[Cavsfansince84]

Of course there's an argument to be made when you include his rebounding impact.

[Colbinii]

Its much more difficult to argue Jordans offense was greater than Russell's defensive impact in their respective eras.

[capfan33]

Think there's a good chance Russell was more impactful on defense than anyone ever has been on 1 side of the ball, but as I've stated in other threads I doubt this would be the case in other eras.

[Cavsfansince84]

I think the issue people have when trying to measure impact is that it would seem to take more skill to score than it would to play defense so its natural for people to want offense to matter more but as mentioned above, Russell's defense/rebounding in his era is likely the maximum impact any player ever had over an extended period of time on one side. Probably only exceeded by Mikan's offense/defense combo in an even earlier era.

[Texas Chuck]

it would seem to take more skill to score than it would to play defense

For guards in particular, the league tells us all the time this simply isn't true. There are a bunch of guards who are good enough to score in the NBA who can't stick in the NBA because they cannot defend at an NBA level.

Even if you claim it requires "more" skill to score than to prevent someone from scoring, the reality is the scarcity is much more on the defensive side than the offensive side.

[Cavsfansince84]

it would seem to take more skill to score than it would to play defense

For guards in particular, the league tells us all the time this simply isn't true. There are a bunch of guards who are good enough to score in the NBA who can't stick in the NBA because they cannot defend at an NBA level.

Even if you claim it requires "more" skill to score than to prevent someone from scoring, the reality is the scarcity is much more on the defensive side than the offensive side.

Is it skill or effort though? Not that I'm saying its necessarily one over the other but what I'm talking about is more about perception than reality. People see the combo of athleticism and skill that MJ had and it seems more impressive than anything players can do on defense.

[Texas Chuck]

it would seem to take more skill to score than it would to play defense

For guards in particular, the league tells us all the time this simply isn't true. There are a bunch of guards who are good enough to score in the NBA who can't stick in the NBA because they cannot defend at an NBA level.

Even if you claim it requires "more" skill to score than to prevent someone from scoring, the reality is the scarcity is much more on the defensive side than the offensive side.

Is it skill or effort though? Not that I'm saying its necessarily one over the other but what I'm talking about is more about perception than reality. People see the combo of athleticism and skill that MJ had it seems more impressive than anything players can do on defense.

Do you really think guys trying to make the league aren't giving effort? I mean defense is hard work, but its not just work. If you can't move your feet, you can't defend. If you don't have at least some level of instinct, you can't defend.

I get what people see. But just because the unnecessary switching hands layup against Perkins looks super cool, doesn't mean that what Tony Allen or Jrue do is something anyone can do if they just work harder. That's simply not the case.

[falcolombardi]

Defense is peobably more about quick decision making that even offense is tbh

The amount of instant reads defense has to do is higher than offense by a lot imo

[Cavsfansince84]

Do you really think guys trying to make the league aren't giving effort? I mean defense is hard work, but its not just work. If you can't move your feet, you can't defend. If you don't have at least some level of instinct, you can't defend.

I get what people see. But just because the unnecessary switching hands layup against Perkins looks super cool, doesn't mean that what Tony Allen or Jrue do is something anyone can do if they just work harder. That's simply not the case.

I'm talking perception here Chuck. The reality of it can be debated but as I said, I think people associate more skill with offense than with defense. As to why guys wash out due to lack of defense, things like aau ball likely play a part in this where the overwhelming emphasis nowadays coming up is on offense and they only spend 1-2 years in college. I would say the prevailing idea in the league is that offense beats defense anyhow. If the bar for making the nba is good to great on offense and adequate on defense that has to be taken into consideration.

[penbeast0]

I don't think you need to limit it to one side of the ball. I think it's reasonably clear that Bill Russell was more impactful on the court in his era than Michael Jordan was in his. This is true even if you have Russell as neutral or negative offensively and Jordan as a strong defender. His impact was that powerful.

That doesn't mean Russell was a greater player than Jordan, though it can be argued. You could claim that Jordan's playstyle translates better into other situations or that his era was that much stronger and both these claims are frequently made. But yes, from everything I have read or studied, Russell's impact over his career was greater than Jordan's over his.

[capfan33]

For guards in particular, the league tells us all the time this simply isn't true. There are a bunch of guards who are good enough to score in the NBA who can't stick in the NBA because they cannot defend at an NBA level.

Even if you claim it requires "more" skill to score than to prevent someone from scoring, the reality is the scarcity is much more on the defensive side than the offensive side.

Is it skill or effort though? Not that I'm saying its necessarily one over the other but what I'm talking about is more about perception than reality. People see the combo of athleticism and skill that MJ had it seems more impressive than anything players can do on defense.

Do you really think guys trying to make the league aren't giving effort? I mean defense is hard work, but its not just work. If you can't move your feet, you can't defend. If you don't have at least some level of instinct, you can't defend.

I get what people see. But just because the unnecessary switching hands layup against Perkins looks super cool, doesn't mean that what Tony Allen or Jrue do is something anyone can do if they just work harder. That's simply not the case.

I'd say it's size/athleticism more than anything else. There a lot of supremely skilled offensive players that will never make the NBA simply because they aren't big enough/strong enough to even passibly play D in the NBA.

[tsherkin]

Russell is a fascinating player to consider. He's also a very intriguing case study in how the particular variables which matter to people can dramatically alter how given players are ranked.

If you just look at in-era dominance, then Russell is far and away the GOAT. You can't fail to reach that conclusion, given his title set, his MVPs, his defensive impact and all of that. You can consider Mikan, but someone like Jordan doesn't really stand up to what Russell achieved as far as what was open for him to achieve in the first place in his own time. He should, by rights, always be there in the GOAT discussion.

Narrative and time matter a lot. Some people value portability across eras, and Russell would not likely have achieved what he did in the 60s had he been drafted even 10 years later, and certainly not forward any more than that. He'd still be excellent even today, of course, but not quite the same. But that also presumes that forward portability is an objectively valuable thing. Same same with stuff like "impact on the game" and all.

A fun little discussion.

[picko]

Russell is, by far, more dominant defensively relative to his peers than Jordan was offensively.

You can count on one-hand the number of players who have had Russell-like defensive seasons. Jordan-like offensive seasons are basically an annual occurrence.

Admittedly, having Russell-like defensive impact has become more difficult over the past half century with the overall quality of the league improving, ball-handlers able to do more to gain separation and a larger share of three-point shooting. That's one of the reasons why Russell is perhaps the most difficult GOAT candidate to assess by modern standards. So much of what made Russell truly remarkable has either been diminished by league changes or become more ubiquitous due to improved strategy, coaching and tactics.

[penbeast0]

Russell's case may be era dependent to some degree, but to a lesser degree than say Steph Curry, Kevin Durant, etc. Great rim protection, vertical defense with recovery, getting back after offensive possessions, and GOAT candidate rebounding are valuable in any era; great outside shooting also always valuable but far less so in earlier eras where coaches discouraged or discounted the value of the 3 ball. Not sure why people feel it is important to project forward and not to also project back.

[ODanseTron]

They're both quite legendary, though Russell in any era would likely need more surrounding talent / help to achieve similar success than Jordan due to certain offensive limitations.

[penbeast0]

They're both quite legendary, though Russell in any era would likely need more surrounding talent / help to achieve similar success than Jordan due to certain offensive limitations.

Russell achieved success with every combination he played with including a series of very bad offenses over most of his career. Jordan didn't achieve any titles (and when you are talking a GOAT candidate, success means title or at least title contention) until they added two other star players and the GOAT coach. I think Russell is successful in any era that he grows up in and probably more so than Jordan given equivalent talent even today, especially with Michael's willingness to bully and abuse his own teammates publicly.

Today, Jordan would likely be like a toxic version of LeBron, with a massive need to control everything and driving off the more sensitive second stars like Irving as well as many free agents. In the 50s and 60s his gambling issues would probably have gotten him banned from the NBA like Connie Hawkins. Still a great player and one of the 4-5 legit GOAT candidates but the myth of Jordan tends to overshadow the reality.

[Cavsfansince84]

I think a good question would be at what point in league history would MJ be the better choice to build around(if you believe there is one).

[penbeast0]

If you are looking for revenue, anything in the marketing age. If you are looking for rings, I'd say the 90s/00s prior to the age of player empowerment and spamming 3s. I'd have Russell in the 50s/60s/70s when teams built around post offense and slashing. The 80s and today, it would be situational depending on the team, the people, etc. I think MJ fits on almost any team without two great wing scorers where Russell would be less effective on a team that already has a great center. Another factor is that in today's market, I believe MJ is much more likely to leave a small market or aging franchise to go to LA or NY (or another perceived big market) where Russell seems more likely to stay loyal.