How many Players have a case over Bill Russell?

[Dutchball97]

Very arguable.


Not even close.


Good to know that there is no question about that with Russell either. Are you aware how many shotblockers existed back in the 1960s?


Why didn't other physical marvels like Wilt or Thurmond didn't replicate old Russell defensive impact then?


Cool triva, but it means nothing.


That's very funny to call Paul 9.5/10 defender compared to Russell's 10/10. On a serious scale, Paul is more likely around 6 at best, he just isn't high impact defender due to his size.

I don't see Paul as 10/10 passer or especially 9/10 scorer. You also missed other important aspects of the game, like rebounding.


I'm sure there is a lot of "flukiness" when Russell won 11 rings out of 13. I'm sure if you simulate this again, Russell would never win a ring.

Of course there are more ways than these two. Like looking at who had a higher impact on basketball court. Russell crushes Paul in this aspect.


Russell played more career minutes than Chris Paul, both in RS and in the playoffs.

You’re calling Chris Paul a 6/10 on defense??? A SIX????!!!!!! This is some of the most absurd slander I’ve ever seen.

DRPM’s the easiest defensive advanced stat to actually search through a long history (sortable by position, etc.) I tried to find a multiple year DRAPM database but didn’t see anything right away. Here’s Chris Paul in DRPM from 2009-2017:

2009: 3.59 (9th overall, 1st among guards)
2010: 0.24 (156th overall, 46th among guards)
2011: 2.54 (26th overall, 3rd among guards)
2012: 2.02 (39th overall, 5th among guards)
2013: 1.40 (73rd overall, 14th among guards)
2014: 3.89 (2nd overall, 2nd among guards)
2015: 1.45 (63rd overall, 19th among guards)
2016: 0.84 (100th overall, 32nd among guards)
2017: 2.50 (21st overall, 3rd among guards)

He has more seasons as one of the very top defenders in the league full stop than he does near average. Even in a noisy stat, his value shows year after year. I wish I had more advanced stats to throw right now, but it took me forever just to post this out.

The numbers you posted ranks Paul outside of top 50 (54th) on average. That makes him above average, but nothing close to 9/10. If you are more generous, you can give him 7/10, but that's a lot considering how small role he had on defense compared to top bigs.

Being top defensive guard means very little. You don't rank players shooting or playmaking ability relative to their position. Being the best (which Paul wasn't) among the weakest group of defenders doesn't make you elite overall.

I can't help but think you're still looking at this with an older lens. For Chris Paul specifically I think he does about as well on defense as you can expect for a guy who is 6'1 at most but due to his size being more than a slight positive on that end is difficult.

However, that doesn't mean being a top defensive guard means very little. How can you acknowledge 6'6 230lbs Draymond Green as an elite defender but 6'4 220lbs Marcus Smart and 6'5 205lbs Jrue Holiday barely have any impact on defense just because of their listed position? There should be room for a little more nuance than you can't have significant defensive impact unless you're listed as a frontcourt player.

I know the point still stands that the defensive difference between Russell and CP3 isn't just 0.5 on a scale of 10 but even if we look at Russell's era would you be comfortable saying guys like West and Frazier were 6 out of 10 on defense at best?

[70sFan]

I can't help but think you're still looking at this with an older lens. For Chris Paul specifically I think he does about as well on defense as you can expect for a guy who is 6'1 at most but due to his size being more than a slight positive on that end is difficult.

That's my point, Paul just couldn't be anything else than a solid defender due to his physical limitations.

However, that doesn't mean being a top defensive guard means very little. How can you acknowledge 6'6 230lbs Draymond Green as an elite defender but 6'4 220lbs Marcus Smart and 6'5 205lbs Jrue Holiday barely have any impact on defense just because of their listed position? There should be room for a little more nuance than you can't have significant defensive impact unless you're listed as a frontcourt player.

It's not about size, it's about defensive role. Smart and Jrue have simply bigger roles on defense than Paul and could impact the game in more circumstances. Neither one can protect the paint though, which Green was great at.

I'd grade Jrue and Smart clearly higher on 10 scale than Paul by the way. I think they are both a clear 7-7.5.

I know the point still stands that the defensive difference between Russell and CP3 isn't just 0.5 on a scale of 10 but even if we look at Russell's era would you be comfortable saying guys like West and Frazier were 6 out of 10 on defense at best?

I think I'd rank them around 7/10 as well. They were better defensively than Paul.

[Owly]

I can't help but think you're still looking at this with an older lens. For Chris Paul specifically I think he does about as well on defense as you can expect for a guy who is 6'1 at most but due to his size being more than a slight positive on that end is difficult.

That's my point, Paul just couldn't be anything else than a solid defender due to his physical limitations.

However, that doesn't mean being a top defensive guard means very little. How can you acknowledge 6'6 230lbs Draymond Green as an elite defender but 6'4 220lbs Marcus Smart and 6'5 205lbs Jrue Holiday barely have any impact on defense just because of their listed position? There should be room for a little more nuance than you can't have significant defensive impact unless you're listed as a frontcourt player.

It's not about size, it's about defensive role. Smart and Jrue have simply bigger roles on defense than Paul and could impact the game in more circumstances. Neither one can protect the paint though, which Green was great at.

I'd grade Jrue and Smart clearly higher on 10 scale than Paul by the way. I think they are both a clear 7-7.5.

I know the point still stands that the defensive difference between Russell and CP3 isn't just 0.5 on a scale of 10 but even if we look at Russell's era would you be comfortable saying guys like West and Frazier were 6 out of 10 on defense at best?

I think I'd rank them around 7/10 as well. They were better defensively than Paul.

My impression was at defensive apex Paul had a substantial defensive impact at his defensive apex.

I like Smart but to my limited knowledge he hasn't or hadn't seemed to quite match Paul's apex defensive impact.

https://www.cleaningtheglass.com/stats/player/2857/onoff#tab-team_efficiency
https://www.cleaningtheglass.com/stats/player/3401/onoff#tab-team_efficiency
97-19 JE PI RAPM
Paul peaked at 2.29 ('17), Smart at 1.15 ('18). Though perhaps '22 is now his peak?
The old RPMs (my sense was that changes made the metric itself worse, not an expert though - just to highlight that I looked at it more before the changes) seemed to also push Paul as a very strong pg defender.

And depending on conceptual understanding and what it is one is seeking to know, one could argue that measured impact undersells the theoretical gap as Paul was carrying a much greater offensive load.

[70sFan]

I can't help but think you're still looking at this with an older lens. For Chris Paul specifically I think he does about as well on defense as you can expect for a guy who is 6'1 at most but due to his size being more than a slight positive on that end is difficult.

That's my point, Paul just couldn't be anything else than a solid defender due to his physical limitations.

However, that doesn't mean being a top defensive guard means very little. How can you acknowledge 6'6 230lbs Draymond Green as an elite defender but 6'4 220lbs Marcus Smart and 6'5 205lbs Jrue Holiday barely have any impact on defense just because of their listed position? There should be room for a little more nuance than you can't have significant defensive impact unless you're listed as a frontcourt player.

It's not about size, it's about defensive role. Smart and Jrue have simply bigger roles on defense than Paul and could impact the game in more circumstances. Neither one can protect the paint though, which Green was great at.

I'd grade Jrue and Smart clearly higher on 10 scale than Paul by the way. I think they are both a clear 7-7.5.

I know the point still stands that the defensive difference between Russell and CP3 isn't just 0.5 on a scale of 10 but even if we look at Russell's era would you be comfortable saying guys like West and Frazier were 6 out of 10 on defense at best?

I think I'd rank them around 7/10 as well. They were better defensively than Paul.

My impression was at defensive apex Paul had a substantial defensive impact at his defensive apex.

I like Smart but to my limited knowledge he hasn't or hadn't seemed to quite match Paul's apex defensive impact.

https://www.cleaningtheglass.com/stats/player/2857/onoff#tab-team_efficiency
https://www.cleaningtheglass.com/stats/player/3401/onoff#tab-team_efficiency
97-19 JE PI RAPM
Paul peaked at 2.29 ('17), Smart at 1.15 ('18). Though perhaps '22 is now his peak?
The old RPMs (my sense was that changes made the metric itself worse, not an expert though - just to highlight that I looked at it more before the changes) seemed to also push Paul as a very strong pg defender.

And depending on conceptual understanding and what it is one is seeking to know, one could argue that measured impact undersells the theoretical gap as Paul was carrying a much greater offensive load.

RAPM doesn't show absolute value though, it only shows an effectiveness within a certain role. Smart's role is clearly bigger and more important than Paul's

[Owly]

That's my point, Paul just couldn't be anything else than a solid defender due to his physical limitations.


It's not about size, it's about defensive role. Smart and Jrue have simply bigger roles on defense than Paul and could impact the game in more circumstances. Neither one can protect the paint though, which Green was great at.

I'd grade Jrue and Smart clearly higher on 10 scale than Paul by the way. I think they are both a clear 7-7.5.


I think I'd rank them around 7/10 as well. They were better defensively than Paul.

My impression was at defensive apex Paul had a substantial defensive impact at his defensive apex.

I like Smart but to my limited knowledge he hasn't or hadn't seemed to quite match Paul's apex defensive impact.

https://www.cleaningtheglass.com/stats/player/2857/onoff#tab-team_efficiency
https://www.cleaningtheglass.com/stats/player/3401/onoff#tab-team_efficiency
97-19 JE PI RAPM
Paul peaked at 2.29 ('17), Smart at 1.15 ('18). Though perhaps '22 is now his peak?
The old RPMs (my sense was that changes made the metric itself worse, not an expert though - just to highlight that I looked at it more before the changes) seemed to also push Paul as a very strong pg defender.

And depending on conceptual understanding and what it is one is seeking to know, one could argue that measured impact undersells the theoretical gap as Paul was carrying a much greater offensive load.

RAPM doesn't show absolute value though, it only shows an effectiveness within a certain role. Smart's role is clearly bigger and more important than Paul's

So I often wonder about the role argument.... I'm not ever quite sure I understand it (if in the same way as others)

I understand role as - basketball is a team game not the sum of 5 parts. And impact is derived from team level data (point margin) so is contextual and is fuzzy. And is more so in smaller minutes role. And no one measure fully captures player goodness and per the above this is about contextual goodness (and for instance extraordinary players with players in teams built around their unusual skillset might see impact inflated at the margins if they feel they can't have a rotation player with the same skillset and/or its so unique that there are such players - e.g. Rodman)... that said

At some point if you're not impacting the score as much over the long term and it's not down to some amazing backup (though Boston does now pack impressive depth), isn't that demonstrating that someoone probably unexceptional can fill that role adequately?

Shouldn't a noteworthy player, capable of taking on a larger role be more difficult to replace? Isn't it ultimately about impact on points margin. Isn't the virtue of a larger role a greater opportunity to influence the margin by being involved in more plays (at least holding it up at a high level over a large sample, if not upping the rate MOV)? On offense I understand the case that someone has to create shots but even then ... when you go to the bench shots still go up (or don't) and the points margin changes and it's measured. [Edit: Still on offense I get that you could be forced into too large a role and it hurts you, and to some extent can argue higher usage players allow others into smaller roles, though I would think that should show as mutually beneficial in impact data). It's role contextual but if you can do it over a number of years (and versus a player consistently less so) isn't it probably the case that you're making a big impact and the how and why ... I don't want to say the detail is unimportant, it's important to coaches etc but.... if the body of data is there (with regard to reducing uncertainty due to noise, which again is a factor), if the influence (or lead over alternate) is significant ... how much does "bigger" or "smaller" role matter? I don't know.

[SNPA]

Less than 5 posts into the thread we had a Kobe sighting.

Thread is tainted.

[OhayoKD]

My impression was at defensive apex Paul had a substantial defensive impact at his defensive apex.

I like Smart but to my limited knowledge he hasn't or hadn't seemed to quite match Paul's apex defensive impact.

https://www.cleaningtheglass.com/stats/player/2857/onoff#tab-team_efficiency
https://www.cleaningtheglass.com/stats/player/3401/onoff#tab-team_efficiency
97-19 JE PI RAPM
Paul peaked at 2.29 ('17), Smart at 1.15 ('18). Though perhaps '22 is now his peak?
The old RPMs (my sense was that changes made the metric itself worse, not an expert though - just to highlight that I looked at it more before the changes) seemed to also push Paul as a very strong pg defender.

And depending on conceptual understanding and what it is one is seeking to know, one could argue that measured impact undersells the theoretical gap as Paul was carrying a much greater offensive load.

RAPM doesn't show absolute value though, it only shows an effectiveness within a certain role. Smart's role is clearly bigger and more important than Paul's

So I often wonder about the role argument.... I'm not ever quite sure I understand it (if in the same way as others)

I understand role as - basketball is a team game not the sum of 5 parts. And impact is derived from team level data (point margin) so is contextual and is fuzzy. And is more so in smaller minutes role. And no one measure fully captures player goodness and per the above this is about contextual goodness (and for instance extraordinary players with players in teams built around their unusual skillset might see impact inflated at the margins if they feel they can't have a rotation player with the same skillset and/or its so unique that there are such players - e.g. Rodman)... that said

At some point if you're not impacting the score as much over the long term and it's not down to some amazing backup (though Boston does now pack impressive depth), isn't that demonstrating that someoone probably unexceptional can fill that role adequately?

Shouldn't a noteworthy player, capable of taking on a larger role be more difficult to replace? Isn't it ultimately about impact on points margin. Isn't the virtue of a larger role a greater opportunity to influence the margin by being involved in more plays (at least holding it up at a high level over a large sample, if not upping the rate MOV)? On offense I understand the case that someone has to create shots but even then ... when you go to the bench shots still go up (or don't) and the points margin changes and it's measured. [Edit: Still on offense I get that you could be forced into too large a role and it hurts you, and to some extent can argue higher usage players allow others into smaller roles, though I would think that should show as mutually beneficial in impact data). It's role contextual but if you can do it over a number of years (and versus a player consistently less so) isn't it probably the case that you're making a big impact and the how and why ... I don't want to say the detail is unimportant, it's important to coaches etc but.... if the body of data is there (with regard to reducing uncertainty due to noise, which again is a factor), if the influence (or lead over alternate) is significant ... how much does "bigger" or "smaller" role matter? I don't know.

Old bump but i feel like this is an oppurtunity to bring up something I'd like to see discussed more. Visually we can make out what players are doing physically but its's very hard to what's happening schematically. Is it possible chris paul is producing more impact than we give him credit for as a defensive-play caller? Iirc he largely organizes defenses and seems to have a good defensive track-record on par with more physically impressive individuals. Maybe that explains the impact disparity? (and could also be applied to other players who seem to do better in impact stuff than our eyetests assume?)

[MiamiBulls]

Definitive Case:
Jordan
Lebron
Kareem

Moderate Case:
Wilt
Duncan
Hakeem
Shaq
Garnett

Weak Case:
Magic
Kobe
Bird

[LewisnotMiller]

A case?

Hmm....there'd be a few, even though I would have him pretty high.

Jordan, LeBron, Kareem definitely have strong cases.
Chamberlain, Duncan, Bird, Magic less so.

I'd have Hakeem clearly behind, but in front of Shaq and Kobe so they're more like honourable mentions. Wouldn't quibble if someone was throwing Curry in there somewhere too.

[ceoofkobefans]

I don’t remember if I ever posted in here but bill Russell usually is 8 or 9 for me on my all time list either right below or behind Wilt chamberlain. I have LeBron Kareem MJ Shaq Tim Duncan Kobe Bryant and Hakeem Olajuwon above him. I think I may need to reevaluate his longevity in comparison to guys like Kobe Bryant Kevin Garnett Tim Duncan etc but it’s prolly clear t10. Peak wise i usually have him 12th just above KG and just below Kobe and Magic although I can see arguments to go higher or lower. He’s a guy with less than desirable film and overall so there is some variance there ig.

For reference my t25 players ever is

1. LeBron
2. Kareem/MJ

4. TD/Shaq
6. Kobe/Hakeem

8. Bill/Wilt

10. KG
11. Bird/Magic

13. KM
14. Steph
15. Oscar
16. Dirk
17. CP3
18. West
19. KD
20. Drob

21. Wade
22. Dr J
23. Nash

24. Chuck
25. Barkley

[ceoofkobefans]

I'm not sure Shaq translates better to the modern era than Russell though, that's the point.

How so? I get Russell gains offensive value and Shaq loses defensive value but Russell also loses defensive value and it’s a lot more than Shaq will. Shaq also gains offensive value and already peaked higher than BR

[ceoofkobefans]

Why didn't other physical marvels like Wilt or Thurmond didn't replicate old Russell defensive impact then?

This is a good point.

Part of it is that he had phenomenal lateral mobility and wasn't always trying to swat stuff into the stands. Not that I'm telling you anything special, but for the sake of the thread, he was a fairly modern style of defender. All of the anecdotes seem to also have him as generally frustrating play within 15 feet of the basket, which is a wider range than most of his more stationary counterparts.

With wilt I think the real big thing is offensive load. A lot of people argue that 72 wilt is the best non Russell defensive season in league history and that’s him as a 36 year old and that’s while not being as athletic or strong or having as much endurance. Imagine if 64 or 67 Wilt had the same offensive load he did in 72 so he can focus more on Defense? I think partially why he was so inactive on Offense and so lazy (for lack of a better word) on defense was because he played so many minutes and was having such a high offensive load that drained his energy. If he’s not doing as much offensively I’m sure he’s challenging Russell in defensive value especially with how easy it is to impact defense in the 60s as a center.

[ceoofkobefans]

Why didn't other physical marvels like Wilt or Thurmond didn't replicate old Russell defensive impact then?

This is a good point.

Part of it is that he had phenomenal lateral mobility and wasn't always trying to swat stuff into the stands. Not that I'm telling you anything special, but for the sake of the thread, he was a fairly modern style of defender. All of the anecdotes seem to also have him as generally frustrating play within 15 feet of the basket, which is a wider range than most of his more stationary counterparts.

The point is that Thurmond himself had excellent lateral mobility. You can't just explain Russell's defense by his athletic advantage over his opponents, it's much more than that.

Thurmond just isn’t as good of a defender as wilt and especially Russell

[70sFan]

How so? I get Russell gains offensive value and Shaq loses defensive value but Russell also loses defensive value and it’s a lot more than Shaq will. Shaq also gains offensive value and already peaked higher than BR

The problem is that I don't think Shaq would gain offensive value and his defense would be very problematic today. Russell is a perfect defender for this era, so even though he wouldn't reach the impact he did in his own era, he'd be still absurdly impactful defender now and his offense would be better. Shaq would likely lose value on offense and his defensive value would collapse.

Saying that Shaq peaked higher than Russell is your opinion, not a fact by the way.

[70sFan]

Why didn't other physical marvels like Wilt or Thurmond didn't replicate old Russell defensive impact then?

This is a good point.

Part of it is that he had phenomenal lateral mobility and wasn't always trying to swat stuff into the stands. Not that I'm telling you anything special, but for the sake of the thread, he was a fairly modern style of defender. All of the anecdotes seem to also have him as generally frustrating play within 15 feet of the basket, which is a wider range than most of his more stationary counterparts.

With wilt I think the real big thing is offensive load. A lot of people argue that 72 wilt is the best non Russell defensive season in league history and that’s him as a 36 year old and that’s while not being as athletic or strong or having as much endurance. Imagine if 64 or 67 Wilt had the same offensive load he did in 72 so he can focus more on Defense? I think partially why he was so inactive on Offense and so lazy (for lack of a better word) on defense was because he played so many minutes and was having such a high offensive load that drained his energy. If he’s not doing as much offensively I’m sure he’s challenging Russell in defensive value especially with how easy it is to impact defense in the 60s as a center.

I would argue that 1972 isn't even Wilt's best defensive season, so I don't agree with that point.

[70sFan]

This is a good point.

Part of it is that he had phenomenal lateral mobility and wasn't always trying to swat stuff into the stands. Not that I'm telling you anything special, but for the sake of the thread, he was a fairly modern style of defender. All of the anecdotes seem to also have him as generally frustrating play within 15 feet of the basket, which is a wider range than most of his more stationary counterparts.

The point is that Thurmond himself had excellent lateral mobility. You can't just explain Russell's defense by his athletic advantage over his opponents, it's much more than that.

Thurmond just isn’t as good of a defender as wilt and especially Russell

I know that he's not as good as Russell (Wilt is arguable), but the relevant question is - why? You can't explain it by Thurmond being less athletic or less agile. Thurmond was a physical monster himself and he had excellent defensive fundamentals.

Some people think that Russell's defensive impact was caused by lack of competition during that era and that he wouldn't be an outlier in different eras, but the fact is that he faced some stellar defensive competition and still came out at the top.

[ceoofkobefans]

This is a good point.

Part of it is that he had phenomenal lateral mobility and wasn't always trying to swat stuff into the stands. Not that I'm telling you anything special, but for the sake of the thread, he was a fairly modern style of defender. All of the anecdotes seem to also have him as generally frustrating play within 15 feet of the basket, which is a wider range than most of his more stationary counterparts.

With wilt I think the real big thing is offensive load. A lot of people argue that 72 wilt is the best non Russell defensive season in league history and that’s him as a 36 year old and that’s while not being as athletic or strong or having as much endurance. Imagine if 64 or 67 Wilt had the same offensive load he did in 72 so he can focus more on Defense? I think partially why he was so inactive on Offense and so lazy (for lack of a better word) on defense was because he played so many minutes and was having such a high offensive load that drained his energy. If he’s not doing as much offensively I’m sure he’s challenging Russell in defensive value especially with how easy it is to impact defense in the 60s as a center.

I would argue that 1972 isn't even Wilt's best defensive season, so I don't agree with that point.

I didn’t say I agree with it either but it’s certainly one of his best. I just hear that alot

[70sFan]

With wilt I think the real big thing is offensive load. A lot of people argue that 72 wilt is the best non Russell defensive season in league history and that’s him as a 36 year old and that’s while not being as athletic or strong or having as much endurance. Imagine if 64 or 67 Wilt had the same offensive load he did in 72 so he can focus more on Defense? I think partially why he was so inactive on Offense and so lazy (for lack of a better word) on defense was because he played so many minutes and was having such a high offensive load that drained his energy. If he’s not doing as much offensively I’m sure he’s challenging Russell in defensive value especially with how easy it is to impact defense in the 60s as a center.

I would argue that 1972 isn't even Wilt's best defensive season, so I don't agree with that point.

I didn’t say I agree with it either but it’s certainly one of his best. I just hear that alot

Yeah, it was an amazing season. The problem is that Wilt even with lower offensive load would never play defense the way Russell did. He didn't have the same quickness, anticipation and timing Russell had.

[ceoofkobefans]

I would argue that 1972 isn't even Wilt's best defensive season, so I don't agree with that point.

I didn’t say I agree with it either but it’s certainly one of his best. I just hear that alot

Yeah, it was an amazing season. The problem is that Wilt even with lower offensive load would never play defense the way Russell did. He didn't have the same quickness, anticipation and timing Russell had.

Yea I agree wilt isn’t as good as Russell but who’s to say he’s not pushing +5 defensive impact with a role similar to Russell’s in 64