TLDR for Bill Russell?

[Colbinii]

These explanations don't explain away why the Celtics downright sucked on offense for a decade+ while Bill was on the team as a leading guy. What is he the unluckiest guys ever? I'm sorry, but no.

Sure, but they counter exactly what you had said.

isn't it weird that their offense goes from great to bad and stays bad for basically Bill's entire career, and then becomes ok/good again once he retires

I personally have seen plenty of film on Russell and his passing and Offensive Rebounding make him a clear positive offensive player in the 1960s [for me].

So...I'm actually open to this. If it's not too much to ask, are you ok with posting some vids to help me better understand?

Do I have a ton of film on Russell? Yeah, let me call my grandpa quick...

This game Russell shows multiple DHO's and affecting the game with offensive rebounding.

Watch on YouTube

This is a short video about his BBIQ, which shows how he knew what everyone would be doing, which helped him better understand and lead his teammates. There is a play where he takes the Defensive Rebound and goes coast-to-coast for a dunk.

Watch on YouTube

[O_6]

Athleticism (Olympic, freak even today)
IQ (Literally just listen to him talk, different)
Leadership (11 rings, 1st actual black coach in American sports history and won as a player-HC in Boston)

He won because Cousy was the PG running the team, as per the haters. Cousy retired then Russell became a better passer and offensive hub, continued winning. Russell only won because of Auerbach being the true general. Auerbach retired and Russell wins as the player-coach in 2/3 years, only losing to what is considered “Peak” Wilt in ‘67.

It’s hard not for me to say he’s the GOAT after writing this. He’s 4th for me right now but closer to 1 than 5.

[70sFan]

Regarding offenses, it should be kept in mind that Celtics usually got significantly better in the playoffs on offensive end and Russell's offensive production also went up in postseason.

I don't think Bill was a huge plus on offense, but in his best years he definitely wasn't below average on that end. Below average players don't have playoff runs like 1962, 1963 or 1965.

[flaco]

Rich man's KG

• greatest winner of all time and it's not even close
• ultimate teammate
• most impactful defender in NBA history
• all-time leader in career DWS by a wide margin despite playing relatively few seasons
• 2nd best rebounder ever behind only Wilt
• freakish athletic ability
• elite open-court player
• terrific passer for a Center averaging 4.3 ast per game for his career
• excellent ball handler for his size
• decent mid-range shooter

[VanWest82]

I don’t know…

On the one hand, I’ll admit that it feels funny claiming someone who appears to be an absolute athletic freak to be a minus offensively…

On the other, I just have a hard time believing he had zero claim on Celtics crappy offenses for all those years.

As much as I’m a numbers guy irl, I’m an eye test guy when it comes to basketball, and Bill just doesn’t do it for me on that front, at least on offense.

[OhayoKD]

Rich man's KG

• greatest winner of all time and it's not even close
• ultimate teammate
• most impactful defender player in NBA history
• all-time leader in career DWS by a wide margin despite playing relatively few seasons
• 2nd best rebounder ever behind only Wilt
• freakish athletic ability
• elite open-court player
• terrific passer for a Center averaging 4.3 ast per game for his career
• excellent ball handler for his size
• decent mid-range shooter

(strikethrough was mine, yes)

[Heej]

4apg as a center back in those days is no joke. Probably looks closer to 7 in today's game lol with how generous statkeepers are and how offensively gifted the league is now.

[Djoker]

Regarding offenses, it should be kept in mind that Celtics usually got significantly better in the playoffs on offensive end and Russell's offensive production also went up in postseason.

I don't think Bill was a huge plus on offense, but in his best years he definitely wasn't below average on that end. Below average players don't have playoff runs like 1962, 1963 or 1965.

This. Prime Russell circa 1960-1966 was at least a mild positive on offense. Above average efficiency for era, good passer and a monster on the offensive glass isn't bad.

Plus I think we are all stuck thinking of two way impact beating one way impact while that isn't necessarily the case. In other words, even if Russell's offense was worse than we thought, that doesn't preclude him from being the GOAT. What Russell did on D moves the needle more than other players in that era could on both ends combined. Russell had higher impact than Wilt after all.

[Owly]

Regarding offenses, it should be kept in mind that Celtics usually got significantly better in the playoffs on offensive end and Russell's offensive production also went up in postseason.

I don't think Bill was a huge plus on offense, but in his best years he definitely wasn't below average on that end. Below average players don't have playoff runs like 1962, 1963 or 1965.

This. Prime Russell circa 1960-1966 was at least a mild positive on offense. Above average efficiency for era, good passer and a monster on the offensive glass isn't bad.

Plus I think we are all stuck thinking of two way impact beating one way impact while that isn't necessarily the case. In other words, even if Russell's offense was worse than we thought, that doesn't preclude him from being the GOAT. What Russell did on D moves the needle more than other players in that era could on both ends combined. Russell had higher impact than Wilt after all.

This rather depends on how/if one accounts for position.

Among players I (once) felt confident calling starting centers for each year in the 60s he tended to be about the lowest in efficiency (TS%) and rate of points. Now I can't find it (posted it several times many years back), sometimes teams didn't have a clear starting center iirc, later in the decade Thurmond tended to be less efficient, on some occasions others would be below in some aspect (probably efficiency?) after expansion. RS wise, compared to peer centers, for whatever one takes that to be worth, I would suggest he wasn't so great as a scorer. Where that leaves him overall depends on a great many other things as well as how much that is weighted.

[HeartBreakKid]

Regarding offenses, it should be kept in mind that Celtics usually got significantly better in the playoffs on offensive end and Russell's offensive production also went up in postseason.

I don't think Bill was a huge plus on offense, but in his best years he definitely wasn't below average on that end. Below average players don't have playoff runs like 1962, 1963 or 1965.

This. Prime Russell circa 1960-1966 was at least a mild positive on offense. Above average efficiency for era, good passer and a monster on the offensive glass isn't bad.

Plus I think we are all stuck thinking of two way impact beating one way impact while that isn't necessarily the case. In other words, even if Russell's offense was worse than we thought, that doesn't preclude him from being the GOAT. What Russell did on D moves the needle more than other players in that era could on both ends combined. Russell had higher impact than Wilt after all.

This rather depends on how/if one accounts for position.

Among players I (once) felt confident calling starting centers for each year in the 60s he tended to be about the lowest in efficiency (TS%) and rate of points. Now I can't find it (posted it several times many years back), sometimes teams didn't have a clear starting center iirc, later in the decade Thurmond tended to be less efficient, on some occasions others would be below in some aspect (probably efficiency?) after expansion. RS wise, compared to peer centers, for whatever one takes that to be worth, I would suggest he wasn't so great as a scorer. Where that leaves him overall depends on a great many other things as well as how much that is weighted.

It's worth noting that Bill Russell was also in his 30s for half of the 60s. He likely just declined offensively like almost everyone else does.

Did your notes have Bill higher in offense in the early 60s?

[Owly]

This. Prime Russell circa 1960-1966 was at least a mild positive on offense. Above average efficiency for era, good passer and a monster on the offensive glass isn't bad.

Plus I think we are all stuck thinking of two way impact beating one way impact while that isn't necessarily the case. In other words, even if Russell's offense was worse than we thought, that doesn't preclude him from being the GOAT. What Russell did on D moves the needle more than other players in that era could on both ends combined. Russell had higher impact than Wilt after all.

This rather depends on how/if one accounts for position.

Among players I (once) felt confident calling starting centers for each year in the 60s he tended to be about the lowest in efficiency (TS%) and rate of points. Now I can't find it (posted it several times many years back), sometimes teams didn't have a clear starting center iirc, later in the decade Thurmond tended to be less efficient, on some occasions others would be below in some aspect (probably efficiency?) after expansion. RS wise, compared to peer centers, for whatever one takes that to be worth, I would suggest he wasn't so great as a scorer. Where that leaves him overall depends on a great many other things as well as how much that is weighted.

It's worth noting that Bill Russell was also in his 30s for half of the 60s. He likely just declined offensively like almost everyone else does.

Did your notes have Bill higher in offense in the early 60s?

As before can't locate original.
And this was just basic shooting stuff. And loss of Reference search makes it a touch tougher, though if one really cared deeply enough not that difficult.
Otoh I would have said 60s is weak for him. Looking at it 1960 he's still strong, after that he's fairly consistently (7 years of 9) below league average TS% (or sub 100 TS+). So it's probably 61 that run started from.

Say '61
St. L Hawks: Lovellette, above TS% (.502), above pts per 36 (25.1)
Phil W:Chamberlain, above TS%, above pts per 36
Syr Nats: Kerr, below (.445), above (14.2)
Lakers: No full time center
Pistons: Dukes, above, above
Royals: Embry, above, above
Knicks: unclear for full season picture

Uncertainty will tend to come from weaker players and in this case the best candidates (for LA, NY) were at least behind Russell in TS%. That said among those I'd feel somewhat confident calling a team's starting centers for the season he seems 6th of 6 in points per 36 (whilst on the highest estimated pace team), 5th of 6 in TS%.

This is of course only one area of the game.