Are we overly penalizing guys on longevity based on era?

[trex_8063]

.

.

It's always interesting to see posters take the 24-game sample indicating russ may not have been the most valuable rookie seriously, but then disregard the 82-game sample from 1970 which more or less puts to bed the idea that anyone should be ranking anyone's peak or prime higher outside of time-machine considerations.

Hmm.......I'm reluctant to contribute to further derailing on this, but I have read the posts above that this refers to (where some are perhaps getting a little chippy or irritated), and I have a few observations:


1) It strikes me as a touch bold to imply that looking at 24 and 48-game samples (without and with, respectively) FROM THE ACTUAL YEAR IN QUESTION is a definitively worse methodology than using a couple 82-game samples of events some thirteen years later.

I think there's a case to be made that the 48 and 24 game samples [little more than 48, actually, since Owly had added in playoff games in his calculations] from within the year in question is the best opportunity we have to scrutinize impact in that specific season. Just my opinion, though...


2) Small correction to what is quoted above [before moving on]: whether Russell was the most valuable rookie of the season was not questioned or commented upon (that I saw). The statement that triggered this whole derail stated he had most valuable player level impact.


3) Re: "MVP-level"......I'm going to largely dodge the semantic debate about what that means, as it felt a little superfluous to me. I sort of feel most of us intuitively figure the phrase means something like: top 3-5(ish) player relative to contemporary competition, which may or may not translate to that same tier in other eras, though is still very very very good in pretty much all eras (except maybe when we get back to pre-shotclock era, which admittedly we are pretty close to in talking about '57). Something like that. Moving on....

I didn't see that Owly explicitly said rookie Russell as "MVP-level" player was wrong, or that such a notion should not be taken "seriously". He merely suggested it seemed "bullish" based on *available evidence (*from that specific year; which [as per #1 above] seems a sensible approach).
He subsequently dived into that available evidence [read on].


4) In case it got lost in the blocks of text, it's worth noting Owly did not fixate on the WOWY W/L records as a means of undermining Russell's case (as many detractors tend to do). In fact, he [post #54] suggested not using the W/L at all, noting he views it as a "worse tool" than with/without pt-differentials.

He noted some other factors (e.g. Frank Ramsey, samples with/without Bill Sharman), too, which seems reasonable and thorough to do.

He then seemed to attack the question from as Russell-sympathetic a standpoint as one could do by: a) ignoring the W/L wowy, and then b) ignoring the Sharman data and c) assuming Ramsey improves NOTHING [i.e. was no better than the guy who replaced him].....to thus be able to credit Russell completely with all improvements to the pt-differential.
However, this still yielded a pt-differential change that is merely decent, but not exactly stellar (that is: not super-clearly "MVP level").

And he then still hedged away from making absolutist statements; rather he merely said this "harms" the case for rookie Russell.


idk, this is just my opinion, but none of that seems unreasonable or delusional. I'd call it "justifiable skepticism", or something similar.
I'm not saying rookie Russell was or wasn't "MVP-level". Perhaps he was. But to say the available data is super-clear on this point would be inaccurate [imo].

[AEnigma]

I didn't see that Owly explicitly said rookie Russell as "MVP-level" player was wrong, or that such a notion should not be taken "seriously". He merely suggested it seemed "bullish" based on *available evidence (*from that specific year; which [as per #1 above] seems a sensible approach).
He subsequently dived into that available evidence [read on].

4) In case it got lost in the blocks of text, it's worth noting Owly did not fixate on the WOWY W/L records as a means of undermining Russell's case (as many detractors tend to do). In fact, he [post #54] suggested not using the W/L at all, noting he views it as a "worse tool" than with/without pt-differentials.

He noted some other factors (e.g. Frank Ramsey, samples with/without Bill Sharman), too, which seems reasonable and thorough to do.

He then seemed to attack the question from as Russell-sympathetic a standpoint as one could do by: a) ignoring the W/L wowy, and then b) ignoring the Sharman data and c) assuming Ramsey improves NOTHING [i.e. was no better than the guy who replaced him].....to thus be able to credit Russell completely with all improvements to the pt-differential.
However, this still yielded a pt-differential change that is merely decent, but not exactly stellar (that is: not super-clearly "MVP level").

And he then still hedged away from making absolutist statements; rather he merely said this "harms" the case for rookie Russell.

idk, this is just my opinion, but none of that seems unreasonable or delusional. I'd call it "justifiable skepticism", or something similar.
I'm not saying rookie Russell was or wasn't "MVP-level". Perhaps he was.

It is only “bullish” if we treat the question as one referring to a vacuum “MVP-level player” rather than looking at the specific year in question. Focusing on net change in point differential could just as easily lead to the conclusion that players like Embiid and pre-Clippers Kawhi were not MVP level talents either.

You acknowledged “MVP-level” could be a top three to five player, but even if we say the bar is more like top two or three for 1957, arguing against that seems like the dramatically more bullish position. In the 1957 RPoY project, Russell received 12/13 top three votes (the sole exception was JordansBulls — for me that may as well qualify the vote as unanimous…) and 9/13 top two votes. Like I said, I can entertain the idea that either Russell was not a top three player or that only Pettit was qualifiedly MVP level that year, but neither case was made. Instead all that was offered was a non-comparative observation about point differentials, and solely on that basis, someone agreeing with a (near) unanimous consensus suddenly becomes “bullish”.

But to say the available data is super-clear on this point would be inaccurate [imo].

I suspect this is more directed at Ohayo, but an unexpectedly low data point off a limited sample is not sufficient for me to call a top three crowning “bullish”, no.

[trex_8063]

Focusing on net change in point differential could just as easily lead to the conclusion that players like Embiid and pre-Clippers Kawhi were not MVP level talents either.

Perhaps, though they arguably are not good comparisons to '57 Russell, even if focusing on pt-differentials to the exclusion of all else:

Kawhi in '20 and '21 shifted the point-differential somewhere in the +11-13 pts [per 100 poss] in those years (fell to small negative in the playoffs, though). '23 Embiid was +10.1 in rs [slight neg in playoffs], was about +11.5 in both rs and playoffs in '22, +12.4 in rs and +19.9 in playoffs in '21.
*These are generally seeming larger than the shift seen with '57 Russell (even if we ignore the Ramsey/Sharman details). (*Disclaimer being that we have to settle for per game WOWY in Russell's case, which obviously has a lot more room for noise than the play-by-play per-possession variety of WOWY we have for Leonard/Embiid; it's possible having the pbp could shift Russell's figures back into proximity.)

Instead all that was offered was a non-comparative observation about point differentials, and solely on that basis, someone agreeing with a (near) unanimous consensus suddenly becomes “bullish”

This isn't entirely true. Allusions were made [by Owly] regarding box-based metrics, too.
But these don't necessarily help the rookie-Russell-as-MVP-level case: Russell is 9th in the league in PER that year; he's 11th in WS/48 (and only 3rd on his own team, in as much as team result influences this stat). In estimated BPM from the source in this thread, he was tied [with Pettit] for 6th in the league (and 2nd on his own team).
^^^This is another area where he ends up looking a little different [relative to his contemporaries] than Leonard or Embiid. Still very good; just not "MVP-level".

As noted previously, a look at the W/L wowy doesn't help the argument either.


So there's a lot going on here; it's not as simple as solely on the basis of limited sample pt-differential. The balance of evidence [from that specific season] is not very supportive of a top-3 in the league position. In fact, it almost universally supports his exclusion from that distinction.

So, as far as appeal to majority arguments (the near-unanimous consensus), what is that near-unanimous consensus born from?
I'm going to play devil's advocate and suggest that maybe some people make extrapolations about '57 Russell based on what he would be in another couple years, or even just broadly based on his whole-career reputation (with some even citing events from more than a decade later as the supporting arguments).

Is it possible that such things influence peoples' opinions on '57 Russell? Or is that 100% impossible?

[AEnigma]

Focusing on net change in point differential could just as easily lead to the conclusion that players like Embiid and pre-Clippers Kawhi were not MVP level talents either.

Perhaps, though they arguably are not good comparisons to '57 Russell, even if focusing on pt-differentials to the exclusion of all else:

Kawhi in '20 and '21 shifted the point-differential somewhere in the +11-13 pts [per 100 poss] in those years (fell to small negative in the playoffs, though). '23 Embiid was +10.1 in rs [slight neg in playoffs], was about +11.5 in both rs and playoffs in '22, +12.4 in rs and +19.9 in playoffs in '21.
*These are generally seeming larger than the shift seen with '57 Russell (even if we ignore the Ramsey/Sharman details). (*Disclaimer being that we have to settle for per game WOWY in Russell's case, which obviously has a lot more room for noise than the play-by-play per-possession variety of WOWY we have for Leonard/Embiid; it's possible having the pbp could shift Russell's figures back into proximity.)

Hence why I said pre-Clippers. Apparently we are right back to Russell being penalised for lack of data. However, even then: the next year the Celtics were -9 without Russell, so what does that tell us?

Use measures equally if you are going to use them for a comparison, rather than say this extra data tells us something contrary for these players, but without that extra data for other players, we must take everything about them at face value.

Instead all that was offered was a non-comparative observation about point differentials, and solely on that basis, someone agreeing with a (near) unanimous consensus suddenly becomes “bullish”

This isn't entirely true. Allusions were made [by Owly] regarding box-based metrics, too.

Only after receiving pushback, but this hardly seems like a genuine concern for Russell in any case.

But these don't necessarily help the rookie-Russell-as-MVP-level case: Russell is 9th in the league in PER that year;

The only year he ever finished higher than ninth was the following year. This reads as deeply bad faith: if you care about PER at all, Russell was basically never an MVP candidate.

he's 11th in WS/48

He was 10th in 1961 (won MVP), 9th in 1963 (won MVP), 8th in 1966 (and with an outright worse score than in 1957), 8th in 1967, 22nd in 1968, and 13th in 1969. So again, I suppose in general, Russell was only an MVP level player for half his career. Assuming you actually take this seriously and are not just grasping wildly.

and only 3rd on his own team, in as much as team result influences this stat).

He was behind Sam Jones every year I listed in the prior paragraph save for 1969 — when he was fourth on his team, or I suppose third among relevant rotation players. Same in 1968. Second on the team in 1967, third in 1966… Most of the time, Russell did not lead his team here, so again, what are you actually arguing.

In estimated BPM from the source in this thread, he was tied [with Pettit] for 6th in the league (and 2nd on his own team).
^^^This is another area where he ends up looking a little different [relative to his contemporaries] than Leonard or Embiid. Still very good; just not "MVP-level".

If Russell’s only valid MVP-level years to you are 1959, 1962, 1964, and 1965, then sure. That too seems like by far the most “bullish” stance in this thread though.

So there's a lot going on here; it's not as simple as solely on the basis of limited sample pt-differential.

Unless you think box scores inputs are appropriate reflections of Russell’s value, it kind-of is.

The balance of evidence [from that specific season] is not very supportive of a top-3 in the league position. In fact, it almost universally supports his exclusion from that distinction.

But it does not need to be that specific season. This is why we need to follow through on these comparisons. By most of the same tokens, Russell should be “universally excluded” from MVP-level in the majority of his seasons.

So, as far as appeal to majority arguments (the near-unanimous consensus), what is that near-unanimous consensus born from?
I'm going to play devil's advocate and suggest that maybe some people make extrapolations about '57 Russell based on what he would be in another couple years, or even just broadly based on his whole-career reputation (with some even citing events from more than a decade later as the supporting arguments).

Is it possible that such things influence peoples' opinions on '57 Russell? Or is that 100% impossible?

I think it appears more possible that somehow in the thirteen years since that vote, a couple of people in this thread have forgotten that the way we assess Russell requires more than a cursory glance at basketball-reference.

You are free to argue Russell was not top five that year, just as you are free to argue it in most other years of his career. But it seems more productive to actually do that rather than tediously equivocate about what in a vacuum might be suggested by the 1957 Celtics reference page, with no further reflection applied. This is about “bullishness”, not “possibility”. It is possible that Russell truly was carried by the best supporting cast in the league, built around a player essentially acting as a glorified Ben Wallace / Dikembe / Gobert, just as it is possible that Russell took a massive leap in the subsequent year when he won MVP, or just as it is possible that for that one year only all the box score indicators were correct. However, those arguments need to be made rather than suggested when calling out the “bullishness” of a stance that a title-winning season immediately predating an actual MVP season could be rightly labeled “MVP-level.”

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Was longevity based on era or coincidence that a bunch of guys with long careers played at the same time?

Did longevity get overrated because of era or because a bunch of fans of the longevity players came to dominate realgm.

Kobe, KG, Dirk and Duncan and finally LeBron who does not need longevity.

[Cavsfansince84]

Was longevity based on era or coincidence that a bunch of guys with long careers played at the same time?

Did longevity get overrated because of era or because a bunch of fans of the longevity players came to dominate realgm.

Kobe, KG, Dirk and Duncan and finally LeBron who does not need longevity.

I think its possible to value longevity(either just as in prime or all seasons where a guy is roughly top 30 in the league) and to also recognize that there are a variety of factors(many which are specific to certain eras) that would likely make it easier for an athlete to extend their prime compared to other eras. Now some of the things you mentioned could play a part in this kind of discussion but I think it being era relative seems highly likely.

[Mazter]

The peak in longevity was in the years around 2000. You had guys like Stockton, Miller, Malone, Jordan, DRob getting all kind of merits close to 40. This season it's LeBron at 38, Paul at 37 (and he wasn't even considered by anyone anymore for All NBA) and then it's all the way back to Curry and Durant who are yet to turn 35.

I wouldn't count on it that it's going to extend to something. The demands for today's game has changed dramatically and it doesn't favour older players. If anything I think it might even regress to early 80's mode. You can already see that it's harder to get a contract for older players now with all the young talent and potential available. Players are putting more stress on their body with more hours of offseason training. Also the style of play is more demanding on ligaments and tendons causing all kinds of injuries.

[trex_8063]

To clarify what my opinion is before getting into the details…..

Would I consider calling rookie Bill Russell “MVP-level” a “bullish” statement?
Gun to my head, I’d probably hedge toward “no”---believe it or not—though it does depend on what exactly is meant by “MVP level” (crap; I guess the semantics were important after all). For instance, is it top 3(ish) or top 5(ish)? Even you have flipped back and forth itt on which it means.

But more than that, for me it hinges on whether we refer to MVP-level of play (when available).......or are we saying he had an MVP-level season that year (i.e. was literally deserving of the [regular season] award itself)?

To the former, yeah, I think he was “MVP-level” (though there is a little room to argue whether he’s merely borderline or on the fringes of it, imo, at least if going with the “top 3” classification [less room if going with top 5]).

To the latter, however…..yeah, I could see that as being a little bullish (especially if leaning toward the “top 3(ish)” definition), if for no other reason than because he missed a third of the season (even if it wasn’t injury-related). I think there were enough guys who were either as good as rookie Bill Russell, or at least close enough, that the missed games become relevant.
If I’m looking at 4-5 players (Player A, and Players B, C, D, E), and I think Player A was more or less as good as any of them (and maybe even slightly better than a couple), but he played just 48 [of 72] games, while Players B-E all played 69+ games……that’s close enough that simply being available for 21-24 additional games is the deciding factor for me (and Player A might have to take a backseat to all of them).

I suspect many others would feel similarly, and I note he actually did only come in 7th in the MVP vote at the time (and that’s with Neil Johnston getting completely snubbed, fwiw; and where race is concerned, he was even 2nd among black players). I’m personally skepitical I’d have him quite that far down the list, even with the missed games, but jsia.

I might not feel the missed games would matter to such a degree vs ‘57 competition if we were talking about full-on “prime” Bill Russell. But imo, we’re not. Rookie Bill Russell is a slightly different animal from what he would become in the next 2-3 years, and I’ll attempt to demonstrate that below, while also responding to some specific comments.

Hope you have a comfy chair, btw….

Hence why I said pre-Clippers.

My bad. The page had broken that into two lines ("pre-" [then next line:] "Clippers Kawhi"), and my eyes missed the "pre-". I retract statements re: Kawhi.


Re: PER

The only year he ever finished higher than ninth was the following year. This reads as deeply bad faith: if you care about PER at all, Russell was basically never an MVP candidate.

Re: WS/48

He was 10th in 1961 (won MVP), 9th in 1963 (won MVP), 8th in 1966 (and with an outright worse score than in 1957), 8th in 1967, 22nd in 1968, and 13th in 1969. So again, I suppose in general, Russell was only an MVP level player for half his career. Assuming you actually take this seriously and are not just grasping wildly.

Re: BPM

If Russell’s only valid MVP-level years to you are 1959, 1962, 1964, and 1965, then sure. That too seems like by far the most “bullish” stance in this thread though.

I hadn't singled those four years out as the only ones where he's MVP-level. I take it as a given that Russell was an MVP-level player throughout the entire bulk of his prime. The question is whether or not his rookie season is on a similar level [even relative to the league around him].

Re: looking at box-based metrics at all….
It had been said that a contrarian stance was being taken "solely on the basis of" a relatively lackluster 24-game without sample. I merely pointed out that no, other things had been mentioned too. And then I provided a few of the specifics.

Do PER and WS/48 do a particularly good job of assessing Russell's value? No, I would say not (I'm skeptical PER does a terribly good job of assessing ANYONE'S value, frankly). The BPM estimates do pass the smell-test a bit better (and not just for Russell alone, but for general player hierarchies in most years).
At any rate, you'd poo-pooed the idea of someone drawing conclusions based on a single data-set, so I threw a few more out there (the box-based stuff).

But you've poo-pooed on this as well, implying it’s near-uselessness in Russell's case........which would then circle us back toward trying to tease out his impact from limited information (predominantly of the WOWY variety).

And contrary to your statement that in order to believe rookie Russell was a notable step down from other years would require believing:

that for that one year only all the box score indicators were correct

…….the wowy information from that one year is also only mild-moderately flattering (not superbly so).

^^^That’s partly what got us into this derail in the first place, remember?

One must look at impact indicators from other years of his career, some relatively distant from '57, and essentially pool them to find a more superbly flattering impact profile (more on that below).

As far as doing further proper assessment of ‘57 Russell (incorporating “eye-test” and all that), let’s be clear: there are maybe one or two regulars on this forum who have ANY [tiny amount of] eye-test on rookie Bill Russell. Most of the footage available is several years distant from this version of him. And I have probably spent more time viewing/reviewing that [later] footage of him than all but maybe a handful of regulars here. I’ll bring my impressions from that eye-test into things in a little bit.

But first, I have a couple more things to point out with regards to box-based metrics (fwiw).....

You mention above that his box-based metrics rarely peg him as a MVP-level player (or perhaps only four times? Is that why those years were singled out?), and also imply that his rookie metrics [and league rank in each] are more or less consistent with the rest of his career.

I don't really agree with those things, particularly the latter.

To be sure, his rookie PER rates well vs the rest of his career: it's one of the best of his career, in fact. However, I consider PER the least useful of the box-based "all-in-one" metrics in terms of gauging player value…..and particularly so for a player like Russell (I’ll touch on this more later). I don't suspect I'd get pushback from you on that lowish opinion of PER.

And otherwise......

For WS/48:
It's his 10th-best of 13 seasons in raw terms, though 11th-best in terms of league rank (one of only three seasons where he did NOT rank in the league's top 10; we have to go to his last two seasons to find years that were ranked worse).
He had five seasons ranked in the league’s top 5 [four in the top 3].

Where that estimated BPM is concerned, his rookie year is a distinct outlier in his career, at +3.1 (his next-lowest year is +5.5). It stands by itself within his career in terms of league-rank, too:

'57: tied for 6th
'58: tied for 3rd
'59: 1st
'60: 1st [comfortably]
'61: 4th
'62: 2nd
'63: 3rd
'64: 3rd [well ahead of 4th, fwiw]
'65: 2nd
'66: 3rd
'67: 2nd [albeit distantly behind Wilt]
'68: 3rd
'69: 3rd

Looking at all of the above, the first thing I note is that—at least if we give very limited consideration to PER—his box-based numbers DO peg him as MVP-level fairly frequently (five times for sure, and just on the fringes of it 2-3 other times).

Second thing I note is that rate metrics peg his rookie season as one of the lesser seasons of his career, even if we give equal weighting to PER (which personally, I wouldn’t): It’s his 2nd-best PER, but his dead-last [by a long shot] BPM, and WS/48 ranks 10th of his 13 seasons [or 11th, if going by league rank]. So overall, not at all one of his better seasons by the box, even inclusive of PER.
If we were to ignore [or at least severely down-weight] PER, his rookie season probably rates dead-last among his 13 seasons based on those rate metrics.

**And that's before we consider minutes.**

Given these are all rate metrics, we probably should consider mpg…..

He played just 35.3 mpg in his rookie season, the lowest avg of his career. He never played lower than 37.9 mpg in any other year, and played >42 mpg in NINE of them. His 12-year collective avg in all years excluding his rookie season was 42.7 mpg.
If we're looking at rate metrics that are similar(ish), but one was while playing 35 mpg and others are at >42 mpg, I'm inclined to look at the bigger minutes seasons as "better" [in a vacuum].

So with that consideration also in mind, his rookie year appears to probably be the single-worst season of his career according to box-based aggregates, with his final two seasons being the only ones that look close……and they're only close if we put stock in PER (which again, we probably shouldn’t).

All of this is before consideration of the missed games, fwiw.

Apparently we are right back to Russell being penalised for lack of data. However, even then: the next year the Celtics were -9 without Russell, so what does that tell us?

I don’t know. That is at least an adjacent year, and thus would theoretically be more valuable information than details from several years distant; and it is an argument in favour of MVP-level.

It is also, however, only a 3-game sample. Noisy things can happen in such tiny samples. For example the very next year he missed just two games, and Boston won both handily. Both were home games against bad teams, to be fair; but they blew them away comfortably in both instances (+25 and +34, respectively). So their SRS is slightly better in the without sample. I wouldn’t take that to mean the ‘59 Celtics were better off without him.

Tiny sample sizes can be weird, and his rookie season is the only year with an actual relevant without sample size.

A noteworthy trend in Russell's WOWY profile, however, is that while most years have similarly tiny sample sizes, it largely reflects very positively on Russell: aside from ‘59, [which reflects poorly], and ‘57 and ‘66 [which both reflect kinda neutral(ish) or only modestly positively], all other years look really good.

In those other years where he missed at least one game, they generally are notably worse without him (both in W/L, as well as pt-differential). It could perhaps be said that it forms a trend, if we were to pool all years aside from his rookie season (since that is the year called into question here).

In the rest of his career [even inclusive of those two games in '59 (and the two in ‘66)] the Celtics were 662-253 (.723) with him, 10-18 (.357) without him (or 11-19 [.367], if we include those two playoff games in ‘58), and the pt-differential is equally night/day different. (EDIT: or even if I remove '67 [because he missed no games that year], the "with" sample is still 602-232 (.722)).

Where WOWY is concerned, the rookie season (with its meaty individual sample size) is an outlier from the collective profile of the rest of his career. And it’s at least slightly distinct/different [not in a good way] from every other individual season Russell missed a game, except for '59 and maybe ‘66.

Is it possible that such things influence peoples' opinions on '57 Russell? Or is that 100% impossible?

I think it appears more possible that somehow in the thirteen years since that vote, a couple of people in this thread have forgotten that the way we assess Russell requires more than a cursory glance at basketball-reference.

I cannot speak for exactly what Owly has put into his assessment, but knowing him I'd suspect it was more than this (essentially already demonstrated as much in his posts).

I do, otoh, know what I've put into it over the years. But rather than take the bait [just yet, anyway], let's continue.....


Aside from the fact that they failed to win the title in '58 [Russell was hurt in the Finals], they appear better in '58 [than in ‘57]: record is notably better, SRS is a little better, they soundly beat a full-strength decent [defending champs] Warriors team. They then fall in six games to a good Hawks team, though again that was losing games 5 and 6 by a combined three points while Russell was hurt and Pettit/Hagan were playing out of their minds, in a series where Boston won the pt-differential comfortably. In fact, Boston's four losses in the series were by a COMBINED 8 pts.
If not for Russell getting hurt, this is probably a team that would "look" better than the '57 team by ALL measures, would you agree?

In '59, the record and SRS were even better still, and they achieve a title.

'60 is where things really begin to take off, though. And it’s mostly on the defensive end, though their offense holds steady too. They achieved what was [up to that point] the 2nd-best win% [exceeded only (slightly) by the '50 Syracuse Nationals] and 3rd-best SRS [exceeded only by the '50 Lakers and ‘50 Royals (slightly)] in NBA history.
I’d like to take a look at the progression from his rookie season to that year……

The league itself got better/more competitive between '57 and '60 (perhaps even substantially so). Heinsohn is basically holding steady vs the changing league in this span, but Cousy is declining relative to that improving league, as is Sharman (arguably to slightly lesser degree than Cousy). Cousy had a notably slumped year in ‘58, fwiw.

In spite of that, the Celtic offense held steady throughout (with ‘60 being just negligibly better than all of ‘57-’59), only 0.7 rORTG separating the best from the worst of those four seasons.

How did that come about? Let’s go year by year (with a focus on the supporting cast around Russell)…..

’58
As mentioned, in ‘58 Cousy has a really down year [sharp decline from ‘57], and Sharman dips slightly from ‘57 as well. Outside of the addition of rookie Sam Jones (who showed immediate promise, but only played 10.6 mpg [and missed >20% the season as well]), the extended bench got worse on offense, too: Arnie Risen and Jack Nichols both declined sharply (and ‘58 would be the final season for both). Dick Hemric had been a decent bench player in ‘57, but he departed the league for greener pastures after that season (pro basketball not yet being a lucrative profession for bench players).

Nonetheless, the Celtic offense got no worse than the year before.

Frank Ramsey is likely a big part of that: he’s around more than he was in ‘57, and has his peak season this year. The other thing that might have helped was Jim Loscutoff……that is: his absence. He missed basically the entire year in ‘58; that’s gotta help the offense, though will hurt the defense (more on that in a moment).
Obviously there’s more of Russell himself around in ‘58; not sure we’d generally consider that a needle-mover on offense, but I’ll come back to this later, as I’m trying to focus on the supporting cast for now.
Could Ramsey’s peak and Loscutoff’s absence (and the small minutes of rookie Sam Jones) be enough to counterbalance the decline in their heavy-minute starting backcourt and other bench net losses? Idk…..maybe. Seems like a little bit of a stretch, but maybe.

’59
In ‘59, Loscutoff is back, though lesser minutes than in ‘57 [again: he probably hurts the offense], and Ramsey has declined abruptly from his ‘58 peak. Sharman has continued to decline a little further in ‘59, too.
To counterbalance some of these negatives, Cousy bounces back from his slump year in ‘58. Not quite back up to ‘57 levels (he’s definitely a lesser player in the league of ‘59), but better than the year before. And second-year Sam Jones is slightly improved, and playing a little more (though still <21 mpg).

Those are the only relevant changes in the supporting cast strength on offense: Lou Tsioropoulos is basically the same as the year before; severely declined Risen and Nichols have gone out, Gene Conley and rookie KC Jones have come in as small minute players (this is basically garbage out, garbage in where offense is concerned).
Personally, the above changes don’t quite balance out for me: I don’t think a slight improvement plus 10 extra minutes of Sam Jones and a bounce-back for Cousy [still below ‘57 level] can off-set the further decline of Sharman, the abrupt decline of Ramsey, AND the return of Loscutoff. Imo, we should have seen a slight decline in the team offense (and almost certainly it should be a bit worse than it was in ‘57), all other things being equal. imo, there’s something else happening here to keep it steady…..

’60
In ‘60, Cousy has declined a bit from the year before. Sharman hasn’t declined in his on-court performance—his rate metrics are a pinch better, actually—but he’s getting 6.1 fewer mpg compared to ‘59 (six in one hand, half-dozen in the other where Sharman is concerned). The Cousy decline makes this a slight net-loss to the offense within this starting backcourt. Frank Ramsey is basically the same or marginally worse in ‘60 than he was the year before, too.
Sam Jones is no better, nor playing any more [still <21 mpg].
Loscutoff has another injury year, so is utilized less (net gain for the offense).
KC Jones in his 2nd year is a bit improved and featured more (just over 17 mpg). This isn’t something that necessarily helps the offense, though.
Maybe Jungle Jim getting hurt again is sufficient counterbalance to a declining Cousy (and Ramsey), idk.
I still wonder about what happened going from ‘58 to ‘59, though; it seems like there is a factor not accounted for.


Anyway…..let’s look at the defense…..

The major factors to look at for defense [going from ‘57 to ‘58] is that Russell is for the first time around the full season, instead of just ⅔ of it (obviously that’s good). But Loscutoff (his generation’s PJ Tucker, who’d been a 31.7 mpg player in ‘57) missed the entire season in ‘58 (that’s bad [for the defense]).
Is that an even trade, as far as effect on the full-season team defense? Idk, maybe. Defense stayed basically the same, at any rate (-0.3 better in ‘58).

In ‘59, Loscutoff is back for regular minutes [though less than ‘57], and rookie KC Jones is getting scant minutes, too, fwiw. Russell increases his playing time somewhat (though Sharman’s [good defender by rep] decreases slightly, fwiw). Also playing Sam Jones more, but he’s a mediocre defender. Defense improves by another -0.5 rDRTG, though some improvement was probably expected based on those changes.

In ‘60, KC Jones is getting more minutes (though still only a 17-18 mpg player). Sharman (good defensive reputation) is playing 6.1 mpg fewer than the year before, though (does that counter-balance KC a little???). Jungle Jim is mostly injured again this year; so that definitely hurts the defense. Cousy’s only getting older (and likely only worse on defense), too. This should be a small net loss to the defense, shouldn’t it?
And yet it improves by another -0.5 rDRTG (it’s now -1.0 relative to ‘58, -1.3 relative to ‘57).


So what’s gone on here? These aren’t seismic shifts, but they are subtle improvements that I can’t always account for looking at the changes in rotational supporting cast, or progression/decline in supporting cast players.

So……I begin to wonder if it isn’t Bill Russell himself that has improved relative to the league (getting better faster than the league around him is getting better), and that is what is accounting for a significant chunk of the improvement in the Celtics from ‘57 to ‘60.


The improvement [‘57 vs ‘60] appears to be a little on both sides of the ball, though slightly more on the defensive side. However, I believe it was Ben Taylor who had made some speculations regarding the pace and ORtg/DRtg estimates available on bbref, which may be relevant here….
As there is no play-by-play, and stats were incomplete, they had to make estimates on some things, such as turnovers. To a degree turnovers were estimated based on how many shots were taken. But Taylor suspected that in the years the Celtics had an insanely fast pace [faster than other teams, even in a generally fast-paced era], where Red had them endeavouring to get shots up so early in the shot-clock, that they often were getting shots up before they had a chance to turn it over…….and thus bbref’s estimates may have been over-estimating their pace.
If true, that would have the effect of overrating their defense, and underrating their offense.

We can’t know; it’s purely speculative. However, it’s not without reasonable grounding.

The Celtics got better relative to the league around them between ‘57 and ‘60; that is measurable and certain. And that improvement appears to be a little bit on both sides of the ball.

As per above, I have difficulty accounting for the improvement based upon the supporting cast changes/progressions alone (especially on offense, which might be bigger than bbref suggests). So I begin to wonder if it’s Russell’s improvement that is the primary driving force behind the team change.

Let’s look at how that might have occurred…..

Russell is predominantly [almost exclusively] a defensive player, and makes relatively limited contributions to the offense through most of his career (some people even argue he’s a small negative on that end).
Knowing the kind of player that he was, and assuming he’ll always be a good offensive rebounder, what are things Russell might do differently [from the bulk of his prime/career] to make himself LESS valuable on offense, make himself a drag [or MORE of a drag] on the team offense?

Some things that come to mind for me are:
*He could shoot more in isolation (because he wasn’t good at it).
**He could pass/distribute the ball less.
***He could set fewer screens (or lower quality screens).

Well, turns out there’s reason to believe ALL of these things may apply to his rookie season (and ‘58 to a lesser degree, as well).

Russell’s highest estimated true shooting attempts per 100 possessions? His rookie year, at 18.85 per 100. Second-highest is ‘58 at 17.82.
After that he’d never again have a season higher than 15.7 TSA/100, and 7 of his 13 seasons would be <15.

NOTE: this almost assuredly the primary thing that caused his rookie PER to be one of the highest of his career. PER puts such a premium on scoring volume, even if it’s at kinda poor efficiency.

If he’s averaging 2 to 2.5 additional pts per 100 possessions (which is exactly what his rookie year looks like compared to the bulk of his prime), but taking nearly 4 additional TSA to accomplish that (also almost exactly the difference between his rookie year and the rest of his prime), his PER will be “rewarded” for that……even though that’s horrid efficiency and very likely was damaging to his team’s offense.

There’s a motivation for this change we can take directly from testimony of Russell himself, btw. He said that he came into the league feeling he needed to score the ball. That’s what all dominant big-men before him had done, that’s what he felt he needed to do too to prove himself worthy of the hype and the high draft-pick and all. And so placed a certain focus on shooting/scoring.
Then [again: this is per his own statements] early on in his career (somewhere after his rookie season, iirc), he and Red had a talk, and Red gave him basically the same advice imposter-Mad Eye Moody gave Harry Potter (“play to your strengths, Harry”). He basically said he didn’t care if Russell never scored a basket; you can dominate the game without scoring a point. Just play defense, control the boards, ignite our fastbreak……you do that, we’ll win; leave the scoring to your teammates.

And Russell expressed what a relief it was to hear that from Red, to stop worrying about his points and focus on the things he was better at.


Passing less?
His rookie season is comfortably the lowest Ast/100 mark of his career, at just 2.1 (next-lowest is 2.8; averaged >3 in nine of 13 seasons, as high as 5.7 in ‘67).

Having scouted a handful of Russell’s later games, I note that his assists are [with rare exception] very “vanilla”. The vast majority of them were one of two types: 1) the screen hand-off; or 2) a basic kick-out from the post (sometimes out of a double, but often out of single-coverage as the perimeter players came off of screens they set for each other).

So I can’t help wondering, since his assist numbers are so much lower than most of the rest of his prime (and so many of his assists were screen hand-offs), if he was setting fewer screens in his rookie season. I don’t know; it’s purely speculative.

Whatever the case, I think it’s a near-given that the screens he set were lower quality than the ones he would later set. Don’t have to take my word for it: this too we have directly from the testimony of the man himself. He has said how he studied the game like a geometry problem, paying attention to angles, noting how certain teammates liked to go off of a screen, where he should set his feet, and so on. He credits this cerebral outlook on the game as a big part of what made him so effective.
And almost all of this type of study occurred after his rookie season (much of it after ‘58, too; I believe he implied he really got into these cerebral exercises after KC Jones arrived [in Russell’s third season]).

So there^^^ we have tangible evidence that he was shooting more than optimal, passing less, and setting less effective screens……all things which likely lower his offensive value relative to his average prime year.
We might also wonder about turnovers. If he’s like many [most?] NBA players, his rookie year would represent one of the worst turnover economies of his career. We have no way of knowing, obviously, but it would be common and reasonably expected for a rookie.

I suspect these are ways in which he improved offensively between ‘57 and ‘60, despite mostly lower PER’s.


As far as defense is concerned, I have little doubt he improved there as well, largely on the basis of his cerebral ponderings, “figuring the game [and opponents] out”, as it were. He himself has implied as much in his memoirs and in interviews. He also implies he played more head-games with opponents as he gained more and more experience in the league.

I have less tangible evidence to support this suspicion, other than his own testimony, and the fact that their defense did indeed get better as his career progressed (in ways we can’t always account for by looking at the supporting cast).


For ALL of the above reasons, I think rookie Russell was a lesser player [even relative to league environment] than he was in nearly every other year of his career (and perhaps by a substantial margin vs the heart of his prime).

I think it appears more possible that somehow in the thirteen years since that vote, a couple of people in this thread have forgotten that the way we assess Russell requires more than a cursory glance at basketball-reference.

You are free to argue Russell was not top five that year, just as you are free to argue it in most other years of his career. But it seems more productive to actually do that rather than tediously equivocate about what in a vacuum might be suggested by the 1957 Celtics reference page, with no further reflection applied. This is about “bullishness”, not “possibility”. It is possible that Russell truly was carried by the best supporting cast in the league, built around a player essentially acting as a glorified Ben Wallace / Dikembe / Gobert, just as it is possible that Russell took a massive leap in the subsequent year when he won MVP, or just as it is possible that for that one year only all the box score indicators were correct. However, those arguments need to be made rather than suggested when calling out the “bullishness” of a stance that a title-winning season immediately predating an actual MVP season could be rightly labeled “MVP-level.”

To recap:

a) I have demonstrated that his rookie year rates as the single-worst season of his career according to box-aggregates, at least if we place less emphasis on PER (and even if we don’t, it rates as one of the bottom three).

b) I have demonstrated how the wowy imprint of his rookie year stands distinct [not in a complimentary way] compared to the rest of his career collectively, and vs all individual seasons singly except two (and does so while actually having a relevant-sized without sample).

c) I have demonstrated that Boston improved as a team during his first few years (a bit on both sides of the ball), and have called into question whether we can account for that improvement based on his supporting cast. I don’t believe we can, and thus suggested the lion’s share of the credit may belong with Russell himself.

d) In relation to the assertion made in “c” above, I have provided tangible ways in which he improved during that time period, supported by: the numbers, his own public statements, as well as scouting observations from later years.


I present this as evidence that rookie Bill Russell was not on the same level as prime Bill Russell (even relative to the weaker league present in ‘57); and that for all the things we say Bill Russell was (e.g. the Greatest Winner of All-Time, one of the most dominant forces the game has ever seen, etc), rookie Russell was NOT all of those things.

And, having reasonably established that he’s not as good in ‘57 as he would later become, I submit that this opens the door to the idea he might not be a shoe-in top 2-3 player in the league that year.
I further suggest that where a more literal interpretation of “MVP-level” [i.e. deserving of the award itself] is concerned, his missed games arguably push him out of serious contention.

You don’t have to agree, and I assure you I have no such expectation of you.
But is this detailed and cogent enough? Or does it still fall under the umbrella of a “cursory glance at bbref”?

At any rate, it will have to suffice.
And fwiw, I don’t believe the burden of proof (“arguments need to be made”) falls only on one side here.

I further don’t know if the above arguments have been “made” or merely “suggested”. I’m not 100% clear on the difference. Is an argument only “made” if you plant your flag and state it in absolutist terms, then dig in and defend no matter what? Shall I fire back glib and dismissive of any differing view?

If that’s how an argument is “made”, no thank you. I don't like absolutist tone, and I rankle when people are dismissive; it's perhaps mostly why I picked up the torch on this. I’ll continue to merely “suggest”, open to the possibility that I’m flat wrong. Good day….

[AEnigma]

This is a good post, and I appreciate the time spent on it just for future use and reference (or maybe you had portions of it prepared previously, but all the same, it was not I post I recognised you making).

However, a lot of it is ultimately tangential to my point. I will start with necessary acknowledgements though.

To clarify what my opinion is before getting into the details…..

Would I consider calling rookie Bill Russell “MVP-level” a “bullish” statement?
Gun to my head, I’d probably hedge toward “no”---believe it or not—though it does depend on what exactly is meant by “MVP level” (crap; I guess the semantics were important after all). For instance, is it top 3(ish) or top 5(ish)? Even you have flipped back and forth itt on which it means.

But more than that, for me it hinges on whether we refer to MVP-level of play (when available).......or are we saying he had an MVP-level season that year (i.e. was literally deserving of the [regular season] award itself)?

To the former, yeah, I think he was “MVP-level” (though there is a little room to argue whether he’s merely borderline or on the fringes of it, imo, at least if going with the “top 3” classification [less room if going with top 5]).

To the latter, however…..yeah, I could see that as being a little bullish (especially if leaning toward the “top 3(ish)” definition), if for no other reason than because he missed a third of the season (even if it wasn’t injury-related). I think there were enough guys who were either as good as rookie Bill Russell, or at least close enough, that the missed games become relevant.
If I’m looking at 4-5 players (Player A, and Players B, C, D, E), and I think Player A was more or less as good as any of them (and maybe even slightly better than a couple), but he played just 48 [of 72] games, while Players B-E all played 69+ games……that’s close enough that simply being available for 21-24 additional games is the deciding factor for me (and Player A might have to take a backseat to all of them).

I suspect many others would feel similarly, and I note he actually did only come in 7th in the MVP vote at the time (and that’s with Neil Johnston getting completely snubbed, fwiw; and where race is concerned, he was even 2nd among black players). I’m personally skepitical I’d have him quite that far down the list, even with the missed games, but jsia.

I might not feel the missed games would matter to such a degree vs ‘57 competition if we were talking about full-on “prime” Bill Russell. But imo, we’re not. Rookie Bill Russell is a slightly different animal from what he would become in the next 2-3 years, and I’ll attempt to demonstrate that below, while also responding to some specific comments.

I agree with this, and if all that had been offered was a criticism of minutes, I may have dropped it. Nevertheless, in current parlance, we tend to talk about “MVP-level” as a player quality, and there I think the postseason is what most people would generally look to first rather than quibbling over minutes played. And seeing as Owly never really talked about minutes played, that seems like the approach we were implicitly using.

I take it as a given that Russell was an MVP-level player throughout the entire bulk of his prime. The question is whether or not his rookie season is on a similar level [even relative to the league around him].

Keep the bolded/underlined in mind…

Re: looking at box-based metrics at all….
It had been said that a contrarian stance was being taken "solely on the basis of" a relatively lackluster 24-game without sample. I merely pointed out that no, other things had been mentioned too. And then I provided a few of the specifics.

Do PER and WS/48 do a particularly good job of assessing Russell's value? No, I would say not (I'm skeptical PER does a terribly good job of assessing ANYONE'S value, frankly).

They were gestured at, but my point here is that they were not a useful gesture anymore than saying “Russell was too short his rookie year”. The BPM estimates are a little more interesting though, so acknowledged on that point, even if a 6th ranking itself does preclude anything.

At any rate, you'd poo-pooed the idea of someone drawing conclusions based on a single data-set, so I threw a few more out there (the box-based stuff).

But you've poo-pooed on this as well, implying it’s near-uselessness in Russell's case........which would then circle us back toward trying to tease out his impact from limited information (predominantly of the WOWY variety).

And contrary to your statement that in order to believe rookie Russell was a notable step down from other years would require believing:

that for that one year only all the box score indicators were correct

…….the wowy information from that one year is also only mild-moderately flattering (not superbly so).

^^^That’s partly what got us into this derail in the first place, remember?

Sure, but the reason I drew analogies with Embid and Kawhi and 1991/92 Hakeem is to point out that an outlier is not in itself meaningful in an assessment of a player’s league relative standing, and possibly not even relative to their own standards. In this case I agree that 1957 Russell is his “worst” year, but that was at no point disputed, because I see “MVP-level” as something of a league-relative determination barring clarification otherwise.

As far as doing further proper assessment of ‘57 Russell (incorporating “eye-test” and all that), let’s be clear: there are maybe one or two regulars on this forum who have ANY [tiny amount of] eye-test on rookie Bill Russell. Most of the footage available is several years distant from this version of him. And I have probably spent more time viewing/reviewing that [later] footage of him than all but maybe a handful of regulars here. I’ll bring my impressions from that eye-test into things in a little bit.

Which I understand, and that again goes into my point that “bullishness” seems improper without strong confidence that 1957 truly did not belong relative to the competition.

what are things Russell might do differently [from the bulk of his prime/career] to make himself LESS valuable on offense, make himself a drag [or MORE of a drag] on the team offense?

Some things that come to mind for me are:
*He could shoot more in isolation (because he wasn’t good at it).
**He could pass/distribute the ball less.
***He could set fewer screens (or lower quality screens).

Well, turns out there’s reason to believe ALL of these things may apply to his rookie season (and ‘58 to a lesser degree, as well).

Russell’s highest estimated true shooting attempts per 100 possessions? His rookie year, at 18.85 per 100. Second-highest is ‘58 at 17.82.
After that he’d never again have a season higher than 15.7 TSA/100, and 7 of his 13 seasons would be <15.

NOTE: this almost assuredly the primary thing that caused his rookie PER to be one of the highest of his career. PER puts such a premium on scoring volume, even if it’s at kinda poor efficiency.

If he’s averaging 2 to 2.5 additional pts per 100 possessions (which is exactly what his rookie year looks like compared to the bulk of his prime), but taking nearly 4 additional TSA to accomplish that (also almost exactly the difference between his rookie year and the rest of his prime), his PER will be “rewarded” for that……even though that’s horrid efficiency and very likely was damaging to his team’s offense.

There’s a motivation for this change we can take directly from testimony of Russell himself, btw. He said that he came into the league feeling he needed to score the ball. That’s what all dominant big-men before him had done, that’s what he felt he needed to do too to prove himself worthy of the hype and the high draft-pick and all. And so placed a certain focus on shooting/scoring.
Then [again: this is per his own statements] early on in his career (somewhere after his rookie season, iirc), he and Red had a talk, and Red gave him basically the same advice imposter-Mad Eye Moody gave Harry Potter (“play to your strengths, Harry”). He basically said he didn’t care if Russell never scored a basket; you can dominate the game without scoring a point. Just play defense, control the boards, ignite our fastbreak……you do that, we’ll win; leave the scoring to your teammates.

And Russell expressed what a relief it was to hear that from Red, to stop worrying about his points and focus on the things he was better at.

Passing less?
His rookie season is comfortably the lowest Ast/100 mark of his career, at just 2.1 (next-lowest is 2.8; averaged >3 in nine of 13 seasons, as high as 5.7 in ‘67).

Having scouted a handful of Russell’s later games, I note that his assists are [with rare exception] very “vanilla”. The vast majority of them were one of two types: 1) the screen hand-off; or 2) a basic kick-out from the post (sometimes out of a double, but often out of single-coverage as the perimeter players came off of screens they set for each other).

So I can’t help wondering, since his assist numbers are so much lower than most of the rest of his prime (and so many of his assists were screen hand-offs), if he was setting fewer screens in his rookie season. I don’t know; it’s purely speculative.

Whatever the case, I think it’s a near-given that the screens he set were lower quality than the ones he would later set. Don’t have to take my word for it: this too we have directly from the testimony of the man himself. He has said how he studied the game like a geometry problem, paying attention to angles, noting how certain teammates liked to go off of a screen, where he should set his feet, and so on. He credits this cerebral outlook on the game as a big part of what made him so effective.
And almost all of this type of study occurred after his rookie season (much of it after ‘58, too; I believe he implied he really got into these cerebral exercises after KC Jones arrived [in Russell’s third season]).

So there^^^ we have tangible evidence that he was shooting more than optimal, passing less, and setting less effective screens……all things which likely lower his offensive value relative to his average prime year.
We might also wonder about turnovers. If he’s like many [most?] NBA players, his rookie year would represent one of the worst turnover economies of his career. We have no way of knowing, obviously, but it would be common and reasonably expected for a rookie.

I suspect these are ways in which he improved offensively between ‘57 and ‘60, despite mostly lower PER’s.

As far as defense is concerned, I have little doubt he improved there as well, largely on the basis of his cerebral ponderings, “figuring the game [and opponents] out”, as it were. He himself has implied as much in his memoirs and in interviews. He also implies he played more head-games with opponents as he gained more and more experience in the league.

I have less tangible evidence to support this suspicion, other than his own testimony, and the fact that their defense did indeed get better as his career progressed (in ways we can’t always account for by looking at the supporting cast).

For ALL of the above reasons, I think rookie Russell was a lesser player [even relative to league environment] than he was in nearly every other year of his career (and perhaps by a substantial margin vs the heart of his prime).

Leaving this because it is good analysis and summation, even if, again, it does not really directly address league competition and instead addresses the unchallenged idea that Russell was at his worst as a rookie. Still, if this had been an incorporated element of the “bullishness” comment, again I may not have cared to push back, because at least this presents a strong case that regardless of whether 1957 is “MVP-level”, it is distinct from his prime in a significant way (never disputed, but also not irrelevant to the broader discussion at play).

And on that note…

I think it appears more possible that somehow in the thirteen years since that vote, a couple of people in this thread have forgotten that the way we assess Russell requires more than a cursory glance at basketball-reference.

You are free to argue Russell was not top five that year, just as you are free to argue it in most other years of his career. But it seems more productive to actually do that rather than tediously equivocate about what in a vacuum might be suggested by the 1957 Celtics reference page, with no further reflection applied. This is about “bullishness”, not “possibility”. It is possible that Russell truly was carried by the best supporting cast in the league, built around a player essentially acting as a glorified Ben Wallace / Dikembe / Gobert, just as it is possible that Russell took a massive leap in the subsequent year when he won MVP, or just as it is possible that for that one year only all the box score indicators were correct. However, those arguments need to be made rather than suggested when calling out the “bullishness” of a stance that a title-winning season immediately predating an actual MVP season could be rightly labeled “MVP-level.”

To recap:

a) I have demonstrated that his rookie year rates as the single-worst season of his career according to box-aggregates, at least if we place less emphasis on PER (and even if we don’t, it rates as one of the bottom three).

b) I have demonstrated how the wowy imprint of his rookie year stands distinct [not in a complimentary way] compared to the rest of his career collectively, and vs all individual seasons singly except two (and does so while actually having a relevant-sized without sample).

c) I have demonstrated that Boston improved as a team during his first few years (a bit on both sides of the ball), and have called into question whether we can account for that improvement based on his supporting cast. I don’t believe we can, and thus suggested the lion’s share of the credit may belong with Russell himself.

d) In relation to the assertion made in “c” above, I have provided tangible ways in which he improved during that time period, supported by: the numbers, his own public statements, as well as scouting observations from later years.

I present this as evidence that rookie Bill Russell was not on the same level as prime Bill Russell (even relative to the weaker league present in ‘57); and that for all the things we say Bill Russell was (e.g. the Greatest Winner of All-Time, one of the most dominant forces the game has ever seen, etc), rookie Russell was NOT all of those things.

And, having reasonably established that he’s not as good in ‘57 as he would later become, I submit that this opens the door to the idea he might not be a shoe-in top 2-3 player in the league that year.
I further suggest that where a more literal interpretation of “MVP-level” [i.e. deserving of the award itself] is concerned, his missed games arguably push him out of serious contention.

You don’t have to agree, and I assure you I have no such expectation of you.
But is this detailed and cogent enough? Or does it still fall under the umbrella of a “cursory glance at bbref”?

At any rate, it will have to suffice.

This was my original comment:

By 1957 standards? I think you need to present who was better. Cousy won MVP that year, but I am certainly not taking him. Pettit won the prior year, narrowly finished second to Cousy that year, and went seven games against the Celtics in the Finals, so he has the strongest case, but usually we grant more than one “MVP-level” player in a given season. Paul Arizin perhaps. Still, if our standard is a twenty game sample with a strong backup in his place, then someone like Kawhi was never a qualifiedly “MVP level” player in 2017 or 2019 either, nor was Embiid this past year, and I suspect few people would agree with that type of standard.

Notice: the latter part is secondary to the key point about comparison. I reiterate this throughout:

I was under the impression that the default nature of a comparisons board would suggest a comparative nature. There are a few ways to do that, and I suggested some worse fitting ones in the alternative to just looking at 1957 specifically, but that seems like a decent starting point — even if the conclusion ends up being “there were only one or zero MVP-level players that year.”
…
The lack of comparative assessment is where it becomes difficult to even have a discussion where “MVP-level” is not defined and where there is not point of comparison by which we can approximate a definition.

Here we are, playing Devil’s Advocate and comparing Russell to himself, yet comparison with anyone else in the league continues to elude us. Again, I appreciate the post, but ultimately there is no real discussion of how to weigh Russell against Arizin, or Cousy, or Schayes, or whomever… or in the alternative, whether this did happen to be a year where only one player cleared that “MVP-level” bar (potential example: the 1976 leagues). And I do not see how someone can take a general consensus top three player who won the title, and call it “bullish” for them to be marked as MVP-level, because relative to their own standards, it was the worst year of their career. None of that has changed.

And fwiw, I don’t believe the burden of proof (“arguments need to be made”) falls only on one side here.

I further don’t know if the above arguments have been “made” or merely “suggested”. I’m not 100% clear on the difference. Is an argument only “made” if you plant your flag and state it in absolutist terms, then dig in and defend no matter what? Shall I fire back glib and dismissive of any differing view?

My entire stance was that it was in fact not “bullish” to call Russell an MVP-level player relative to his league by the way most people here seem to use the term. Do you feel that was unsupported? Do you feel that was excessively “absolutist”? Were my repeated comments that I could envision multiple ways he could be argued as not “MVP-level” insufficiently open-minded compared to a characterisation of “bullishness” on something no one else, including yourself, seems to see as “bullish”?

If that’s how an argument is “made”, no thank you. I don't like absolutist tone, and I rankle when people are dismissive; it's perhaps mostly why I picked up the torch on this. I’ll continue to merely “suggest”, open to the possibility that I’m flat wrong. Good day….

Perhaps I should have sent this exact paragraph to Owly.