Which pair would you take to start a franchise today?

[penbeast0]

In today's game, would it make a difference (assuming roughly equivalent strength of teammates around them)?

Bill Russell and Sam Jones
Wilt Chamberlain and Hal Greer
Jerry Lucas and Oscar Robertson
Elgin Baylor and Jerry West

[Dutchball97]

Baylor and West are the most talented duo here and in the modern era a large guard and moderately sized wing is a more viable tandem to build around than it was in the 60s where centers reigned supreme. I'm not so sure Baylor would translate well though as he doesn't have the greatest defensive reputation and I doubt he'd be a good 3-point shooter.

Russell/Jones and Wilt/Greer would work pretty well but am I crazy for thinking Lucas/Oscar might benefit the most from playing in the modern era?

[penbeast0]

I would guess Lucas and Oscar would get the biggest boost but they were easily the least successful duo of the 4. Russell and Sam Jones were the most successful but Boston had the most talent around them and Jones's scoring game was focused on the midrange shot (and bank shots at that). Baylor and West have the positional advantage of being a combo forward/big guard with PG skills but not as clear that Baylor's inside/midrange game which was not that efficient even in their prime would translate. Wilt/Greer probably the highest floor but the lowest ceiling. In other words, I can see an argument being made for any of the 4, lol.

[rk2023]

West and Baylor (confident to say this even with putting just some Laker-fam bias aside), I think both their games translate very well to the modern era in a more analytical rim, Free-Throw, 3Pointer oriented league.

The former two would help Baylor, while I see West being a great 3-level (heck, every spot on the floor level) scorer. I think West further gets the opportunity to flex some of the attributes that made him a stellar guard defender even more in today's game, while Baylor excels as a rebounder - probably being the best out of all forwards in the league.

TLDR: The combo of the two with access to modern information and perks serving as a complement to on-court basketball play provides too much offensive fire-power to firmly answer on any of the other three.

[70sFan]

Wow, that's tough one. I think I need more time to decide.

[falcolombardi]

Bill russel and sam jones

[penbeast0]

Bill russel and sam jones

Not very interesting unless you give us some measure of why.

[falcolombardi]

Bill russel and sam jones

Not very interesting unless you give us some measure of why.

Both wilt and russel would suffer from an era where it is tougher for a big to hold a whole defense....but
I think russel would translate seamlessly into the modern game otherwise with his mobility and solid passing/athletism. Defensive big and off ball shooter is also a seamless fit with zero overlap of their skillsets

Oscar and west would thrive in the modern game too and -maybe- bridge the gap with russel that way. But with everyrhingh else being close i would go with the "proven" duo here

[tsherkin]

Bill russel and sam jones

Major drop-off in defensive efficacy, not nearly enough offensive punch to matter. Can't envision this being the best pairing without some radical alterations in their offensive skills.

[AEnigma]

Would the second player also need to be or otherwise be expected to be the team’s second-best player? Are they automatically receiving a maximum contract?

If so, give me West and Baylor. If not, depends on the type of players I can add based on salary. I guess I would rather have Wilt or Russell with an unknown maximum (or near maximum) salary player than I would have West and Baylor both likely earning maximum salaries, but that feels like dodging the question.

[falcolombardi]

Bill russel and sam jones

Major drop-off in defensive efficacy, not nearly enough offensive punch to matter. Can't envision this being the best pairing without some radical alterations in their offensive skills.

Counterpoint, west and oscar skillsets would be less of an outlier in the modern nba full of big athletic guards who benefit from (carrying) loosened dribbling rules and the 3 point line

So they themselves would need to adapt to maintain their relative era impact.

Not convinced west and oscar would become more impactful than russel in modern game (although it is a possibility)

[tsherkin]

Counterpoint, west and oscar skillsets would be less of an outlier in the modern nba full of big athletic guards who benefit from (carrying) loosened dribbling rules and the 3 point line

That is in no way a counterpoint to what I said. But that's true, West and Oscar would both be more... expected, rather than revolutionary, in today's game. They'd fit in well, though. Better, IMHO, than Russell/Jones. I mean, granted, Russ would still be a high-end defender and rebounder, of course. And some PnR address might help Russ overcome his incompetence at the line and general lack of range. I think his overall efficiency would be better to at least some extent. Jones...is tough to get a bead on. 65, he had some scoring volume. 123.6 possessions per game (estimated) is a lot, and he moved well in transition, but between that and how he played, he just doesn't project as a high-end driver of team offense in the contemporary age. He certainly wasn't a PnR spammer, I mean, he's known more for off-ball movement and catch-and-shoot action. A good guy to have on your team, but not what you want out of a core duo today.

Not convinced west and oscar would become more impactful than russel in modern game (although it is a possibility)

I suspect they would. Both of them play modern games. The outsized nature of their impact in-era would be lessened, but Russell also wouldn't be a league-altering defender in today's game for a host of different reasons... and his teams wouldn't win as much just by virtue of the changes in playoff format, so that needs to be considered as well, given the context of the OP.

[falcolombardi]

Counterpoint, west and oscar skillsets would be less of an outlier in the modern nba full of big athletic guards who benefit from (carrying) loosened dribbling rules and the 3 point line

That is in no way a counterpoint to what I said. But that's true, West and Oscar would both be more... expected, rather than revolutionary, in today's game. They'd fit in well, though. Better, IMHO, than Russell/Jones. I mean, granted, Russ would still be a high-end defender and rebounder, of course. And some PnR address might help Russ overcome his incompetence at the line and general lack of range. I think his overall efficiency would be better to at least some extent. Jones...is tough to get a bead on. 65, he had some scoring volume. 123.6 possessions per game (estimated) is a lot, and he moved well in transition, but between that and how he played, he just doesn't project as a high-end driver of team offense in the contemporary age. He certainly wasn't a PnR spammer, I mean, he's known more for off-ball movement and catch-and-shoot action. A good guy to have on your team, but not what you want out of a core duo today.

Not convinced west and oscar would become more impactful than russel in modern game (although it is a possibility)

I suspect they would. Both of them play modern games. The outsized nature of their impact in-era would be lessened, but Russell also wouldn't be a league-altering defender in today's game for a host of different reasons... and his teams wouldn't win as much just by virtue of the changes in playoff format, so that needs to be considered as well, given the context of the OP.

Bill russel is the kind of athlete and basketball mind who could replicate a peak howard as rebounder/rim runner, the lenght and timing to replicate gobert and the mobility and intelligence to replicate draymond pick and roll and perimeter defense (and some of the passing of draymond too)

He would be a mvp and superstar still and by virtue of being a versatile defensive star his portability would be essentially perfect except maybe alongside another non-shooting big

West and oscar would be monsters in todays game too. But i dont see them replicating the value of a lebron offensively and definetely not defensively.

Prime lebron is the only player i would confidently take over russel in the modern game. Even giannis amd curry i wouldnt be totally convinced

[tsherkin]

Bill russel is the kind of athlete and basketball mind who could replicate a peak howard as rebounder/rim runner, the lenght and timing to replicate gobert and the mobility and intelligence to replicate draymond pick and roll and perimeter defense (and some of the passing of draymond too)

He would be a mvp and superstar still and by virtue of being a versatile defensive star his portability would be essentially perfect except maybe alongside another non-shooting big

Mmmm. I don't know if he'd be an MVP today, I don't think I have your confidence in that translation or the voters, but he'd be very good. Rudy Gobert plus.

West and oscar would be monsters in todays game too. But i dont see them replicating the value of a lebron offensively and definetely not defensively.

Certainly not defensively. The pivot for them would be whether or not they could develop a 3pt shot. There's a good chance yes, but it's not a guarantee.

Prime lebron is the only player i would confidently take over russel in the modern game. Even giannis amd curry i wouldnt be totally convinced

I'd take a lot of players over Russell in the modern game, personally. I think you're dramatically overselling the value of his defense in a league where the style of play he developed has become more the expectation and desire than a revolutionary concept. And with the 3pt line. And of course there's a tactical movement away from volume offensive rebounding being as relevant as it was in his era of no 3s, lower shooting percentages and faster tempos.

They were a -6 to -11 defense in their own time during the 60s. The 04 Spurs were -8.8, those Pistons -7.5, Dwight topped out at -6.4... I don't think it's possible for Russell to author anything close to the defensive impact he enjoyed in-era because of the difference in the game, so I have far, far less confidence in his total impact in today's game. Again, I believe he'd have a lot of utility, but like...

Every half-way competent team would PnR against him all the time to draw him out of the paint. He recovered very well with his exceptional athleticism, and he'd adapt to the distance to some degree, but that's one more thing eroding his ability to control the interior... just like the restricted area and the 3-in-the-key defensive violation.

Just like we see with someone like Gobert, there's a limit to a high-end defender who isn't a good scorer. Russell was not a good scorer. He had limited range, blew donkey ass at the line and while he was competent in-era as a post scorer (especially in the playoffs), he's not a focal scorer by any stretch of the imagination. So now we're talking about trying to hide him on offense when he isn't running out in transition, and trying to Joakim Noah'g him into usage as a screener and so forth because he isn't a positive spacing element on the floor. And then you put him alongside Sam Jones, who is 100% not a focal offensive player in today's game and we've got problems with that pair.

[falcolombardi]

Bill russel is the kind of athlete and basketball mind who could replicate a peak howard as rebounder/rim runner, the lenght and timing to replicate gobert and the mobility and intelligence to replicate draymond pick and roll and perimeter defense (and some of the passing of draymond too)

He would be a mvp and superstar still and by virtue of being a versatile defensive star his portability would be essentially perfect except maybe alongside another non-shooting big

Mmmm. I don't know if he'd be an MVP today, I don't think I have your confidence in that translation or the voters, but he'd be very good. Rudy Gobert plus.

West and oscar would be monsters in todays game too. But i dont see them replicating the value of a lebron offensively and definetely not defensively.

Certainly not defensively. The pivot for them would be whether or not they could develop a 3pt shot. There's a good chance yes, but it's not a guarantee.

Prime lebron is the only player i would confidently take over russel in the modern game. Even giannis amd curry i wouldnt be totally convinced

I'd take a lot of players over Russell in the modern game, personally. I think you're dramatically overselling the value of his defense in a league where the style of play he developed has become more the expectation and desire than a revolutionary concept. And with the 3pt line. And of course there's a tactical movement away from volume offensive rebounding being as relevant as it was in his era of no 3s, lower shooting percentages and faster tempos.

They were a -6 to -11 defense in their own time during the 60s. The 04 Spurs were -8.8, those Pistons -7.5, Dwight topped out at -6.4... I don't think it's possible for Russell to author anything close to the defensive impact he enjoyed in-era because of the difference in the game, so I have far, far less confidence in his total impact in today's game. Again, I believe he'd have a lot of utility, but like...

Every half-way competent team would PnR against him all the time to draw him out of the paint. He recovered very well with his exceptional athleticism, and he'd adapt to the distance to some degree, but that's one more thing eroding his ability to control the interior... just like the restricted area and the 3-in-the-key defensive violation.

Just like we see with someone like Gobert, there's a limit to a high-end defender who isn't a good scorer. Russell was not a good scorer. He had limited range, blew donkey ass at the line and while he was competent in-era as a post scorer (especially in the playoffs), he's not a focal scorer by any stretch of the imagination. So now we're talking about trying to hide him on offense when he isn't running out in transition, and trying to Joakim Noah'g him into usage as a screener and so forth because he isn't a positive spacing element on the floor. And then you put him alongside Sam Jones, who is 100% not a focal offensive player in today's game and we've got problems with that pair.

The thingh you are missing on with russel celtics defensive ratings is that they actually dont reflect their actual defensive dominance

Average off/def ratings in the 60's were lower than now, being -8 in a league that averages 98 points/100 is more valuable than being -8 in a league with a 112 points/100. From that alone an -average- celtics -8.2 defense would be equivalent to a modern -9 defense.... so move those numbers up

And another thingh here, celtics played in 8-10 team league. Meaning that their own defensive ratings depressed the league average by 1- 1.2 point in average compared to a moder -8 or -10 defense only doing this by 0.2 or 0.3 points at most

So add those two thinghs together and russel celtics -8 or -10 offenses are actually closer to a modern -10 to -12 range. Let that sink in

You are hardcore understimating how much of an outlier russel celtics were defensively. They were a standard deviation ahead not only of any other defense but of any other team defense or offense in general

[tsherkin]

The thingh you are missing on with russel celtics defensive ratings is that they actually dont reflect their actual defensive dominance

I realize the individual ratings aren't exact. It doesn't materially change my point.

So add those two thinghs together and russel celtics -8 or -10 offenses are actually closer to a modern -10 to -12 range. Let that sink in

it's irrelevant. I know he was incredible in-era. The specifics of his in-era greatness are not salient.

You are hardcore understimating how much of an outlier russel celtics were defensively.

No, I'm not. I'm just not belaboring the point because it is not relevant to my point.

[falcolombardi]

The thingh you are missing on with russel celtics defensive ratings is that they actually dont reflect their actual defensive dominance

I realize the individual ratings aren't exact. It doesn't materially change my point.

So add those two thinghs together and russel celtics -8 or -10 offenses are actually closer to a modern -10 to -12 range. Let that sink in

it's irrelevant. I know he was incredible in-era. The specifics of his in-era greatness are not salient.

You are hardcore understimating how much of an outlier russel celtics were defensively.

No, I'm not. I'm just not belaboring the point because it is not relevant to my point.

Is relevant when you could take 33% off from celtics peak defense, give them average offense and they could still be the best team in the current nba off defense alone at around -8

Put another way, steve nash a goat offensive player candidate, at phoenix most offense slanted, with the benefits of being ahead of the league in approach to offense too, didnt reach those heights.

But even beyond that, you called him "gobert +". I am high on gobert and that is still selling him short. Gobert doesnt have the athletism + mobility to play in the perimeter than a garnett or russel body type have. Gobert is also not arguably the smartest player of his generation at intuitively understanding the game better than all his peers

Russel on defense alone is like the combinstion of draymond and gobert best defensive attributes.

With the potential to develop both of their best offensive strenghts too (draymond intelligent passing and gobert athletic rim running/rebounding)

His offensive potential is a good passing, great offensive rebounding, hyper athletic rim runner/lob threath with some post game for the odd mismatch against a smaller player. And the basketball IQ to put it all together in the modern game

(The possibility of russel passing and athletism being bettrt used with modern spacing is somethingh you didnt consider in your post)

[tsherkin]

Is relevant when you could take 33% off from celtics peak defense, give them average offense and they could still be the best team in the current nba off defense alone at around -8

Not relevant to the point I made, though. 33% is an arbitrary percentage and doesn't really address the stuff I said about the basic differences in how the league rolls these days. 3PAr alone makes a difference to his relevance because his shot blocking isn't relevant to those almost at all.

[Russel on defense alone is like the combinstion of draymond and gobert best defensive attributes.

This feels more like a description of how he impacted his actual time, not how he'd perform today.

His offensive potential is a good passing, great offensive rebounding, hyper athletic rim runner/lob threath with some post game for the odd mismatch against a smaller player. And the basketball IQ to put it all together in the modern game

Yeah. He'd be all right. He wouldn't be a guy you wanted as a top-2 offensive threat on your team, though. You'd need a primary playmaker, a focal scorer and a secondary scoring threat in front of him, which isn't cheap.

(The possibility of russel passing and athletism being bettrt used with modern spacing is somethingh you didnt consider in your post)

That's functionally incorrect, as I addressed that in terms of his offensive usage specifically...

[falcolombardi]

Is relevant when you could take 33% off from celtics peak defense, give them average offense and they could still be the best team in the current nba off defense alone at around -8

Not relevant to the point I made, though. 33% is an arbitrary percentage and doesn't really address the stuff I said about the basic differences in how the league rolls these days. 3PAr alone makes a difference to his relevance because his shot blocking isn't relevant to those almost at all.

[Russel on defense alone is like the combinstion of draymond and gobert best defensive attributes.

This feels more like a description of how he impacted his actual time, not how he'd perform today.

His offensive potential is a good passing, great offensive rebounding, hyper athletic rim runner/lob threath with some post game for the odd mismatch against a smaller player. And the basketball IQ to put it all together in the modern game

Yeah. He'd be all right. He wouldn't be a guy you wanted as a top-2 offensive threat on your team, though. You'd need a primary playmaker, a focal scorer and a secondary scoring threat in front of him, which isn't cheap.

(The possibility of russel passing and athletism being bettrt used with modern spacing is somethingh you didnt consider in your post)

That's functionally incorrect, as I addressed that in terms of his offensive usage specifically...

and? Saving 5 points on defense is as valuable as adding 5 points on offense. That he is not a offensive player doesnt disqualify him. Points are still points

You can have all those offensive players and still be a meh team because of lacking defense

[tsherkin]

and? Saving 5 points on defense is as valuable as adding 5 points on offense. That he is not a offensive player doesnt disqualify him. Points are still points

Defense is very valuable. His defense wouldn't be as high-impact as it was in his own era, though, and he presents offensive problems as well... most especially in this context, next to Sam Jones.

You can have all those offensive players and still be a meh team because of lacking defense

True. Unrelated to anything I said, but true.