falcolombardi wrote:[
It doesnt need to, russel in era defensive impact is likely higher than any player offensive impact has ever been. And he could easily become a plus offensive player with his intelligence, rebounding and athletism. (I mean, if we are taking for granted west/oscar will adapt well tp the 3-point era...)
We are not taking for granted anything about West or Oscar. You've been quoting me and talking about them, but all I really said was that I don't believe in Russell/Jones as the pair to select here. I said nothing about West/Oscar. I suppose they represent 2/3s of the remaining choices, of course.
Regardless, nothing about Russell in-era matters. We're speaking of today, per the OP, so the point centers around what would and wouldn't translate from his impact then. No matter how large his impact was at the time, there are foundational differences in the nature of the game which undercut his ability to exert defensive value. He can still be an exceptional defender, and would surely be the best defensive big in the game, but the level of impact that could provide is far from the same as it was in the 60s, structurally speaking.
You keep saying this, but you are diminishing russel cause he cannot lead a offense
Yes. Because when you pick Russell and Jones, you don't have any real driving force for a contemporary offense, and it becomes a very large problem. If you put Russell with an actual offensive star, we start to have a separate conversation. Sam Jones isn't good enough to make up for Russell's inability to orchestrate a contemporary offense.
Can oscar robertson anchor a defense?
Why value one half of the game so much more?
Because it's easier to develop offense and you have the benefit of forcing the defense to react, which is a tactical advantage of offense over D. And because you can orchestrate a decent to strong defense well enough without generational talents, and then drive the game with offense. If your defense is above-average and your offense is excellent, you're better positioned to win than with the reverse.
Even if russel defense loses more in the modern game than oscar/west offense, he is falling from a much higher point. He can afford to lose value and still be more valuabke than west/oscar
I think he loses enough value that it becomes a large problem in context. Again, if you swap Jones for someone like West or Oscar, it's a very different story. But if you leave it as-is, in the modern game, even accounting for some usage differences and what-not, mmm mmm, he doesn't have the necessary punch.
I appreciate the argument about his offense. I certainly don't think he'd be a 44% FG in today's game. He'd probably be a low/mid teens scorer like he was in the back half of the 60s, but likely shooting well north of 50% from the field because he'd be getting garbage buckets, put-backs and stuff in transition. Some PnR action as well, he certainly had the head and the hands for it. Wouldn't go to him in the post much, that wasn't really his forte, and of course he leaves all kinds of points on the board from the foul line. He grew less efficient in his own era, but strategy has changed a lot since then and I don't think he'd be a 96 TS+ guy as he was from 61 forward. He had the hands, head and athletic tools to be a pretty decent 3rd option-type scorer. But now we're talking about a young Dikembe Mutombo offensively, in essence. It's not the greatest example, I think Russ would be a little better than that because he had notably superior mobility, but you get what I mean. Deke was a 12.7 ppg guy on 52.8% FG over his first 9 seasons, and a little better than that smells about on brand for Russell in today's game. Something like 16 ppg on 53% seems pretty reasonable, give or take the playmaker/tempo he ends up with. Excellent rebounding, fantastic defense, still a perennial All-Star and fabulous addition to any team.
But again, context. You put that on a squad with Sam Jones, and you're lacking a focal offensive player. Defense alone isn't going to cut it. Sam Jones was a 6'4 guard who wasn't a primary playmaker. Good mid-range shooter, good in transition, had some teardrops, would probably look a little better with modern officiating as far as fouls drawn and ball-handling, had as good a chance as most as far as developing a 3 ball, as a nod to your remarks about West and Oscar. A good offensive player. A decent second or very good third option. A problem in this particular arrangement because he's not enough of a scorer or a playmaker to really anchor a contemporary offense, and matched with Russell, that creates a very large void on O.
And I see what you're trying to paint here. Why NOT build a team around D?
It isn't historically an idea that works out too well, and defense-oriented teams that don't have really good offense tend not to become much of anything but .500 squads. Now, you're also describing a scenario where Russ is better than I expect he'd be in today's game, but assuming that, he'd have huge impact. Okay, great. We've seen slightly negative offenses (relative ORTG) with -5 defenses win nearly 50 games. Atlanta in 2016 won 48, for example. The 08 Celtics were "only" a +2.7 offense but a -8.6 defense and that worked out very well for them, although there is something to be said for the novelty of their defense and the breadth of their defensive talent. 2011 Boston rocked a -1.1 offense and a -7.0 defense en route to 56 wins. 2009, +2.2 O, -6.0 D, 62 wins. 2011 Chicago, also with Thibodeaux, +1.0 O, -7 D, 62 wins. There are cases here for teams that did quite well in the RS, to be sure. But 08 and 2011 were good examples of teams that changed the way the league thought about D, and of course offense has changed since even then.
The increased emphasis on 3s de-emphasizes the value of shot-blocking. Russell was obviously more than just a shot blocker, but the intimidation he provided with his in-key rotations is of less value as the distance he has to travel lengthens, growing longer and longer as he tries to get out to the shooters. He'd play the PnR very well, which is great and helps him remain relevant, and high-impact. But there's a limit to how much any one player will impact the game, and a lot of Russell's humongous impact stemmed from not only his innate ability and hard work, but from the way the game worked at the time. He was fairly revolutionary and the game was played closer to the rim a lot more often. Now, we've already seen someone like Garnett at the tail-end of his best years having a very good time impacting a defense with his mobility, so we know a guy like Russ in his athletic prime could be all kinds of problematic. But I doubt very much to the full extent you're describing. And again, we circle back to how this particular pair matches with one another, you know?
