Why I believe Bill Russell would've been just as good in today's NBA

[Harry Palmer]

Just as good is arguable, just as dominant is not.

[dhsilv2]

Again Capela peaked at 16.6 a game at 33 minutes. Passing ability plus having more ability to put the ball on the floor greatly reduces the negatives of poor shooting. It doesn't negate it. Russell would have some spacing issues.

Yeah, 5 years ago on the 2019 Rockets with
Harden the year after his MVP (he finished 2nd). That is relevant context. He also managed 14+ ppg twice in his career. Capela was okay, but he was only so useful.

People want to paint Russell closer to Ben Wallace or Dennis Rodman than what he'd be. Which is much more likely a slightly better Capella type of lob threat with some post moves if you need them in a pinch and some ball handling.

This is non-sequitur, as I am not doing that.

I have already agreed that he would shoot well based on deployment and have been speaking of him scoring in the teens at above league average efficiency. None of that looks like Bem Wallace or Dennis Rodman at all.

Perhaps you are.mistaking my comments about Capela for the projected version of Russ?

I'm not really arguing as much as trying to better paint what he'd be. A lob threat like Capella who could put the ball on the floor, pass, and has more touch and post moves is a pretty useful guy. If Capella could get the ball and make a quick move to score on a smaller guy vs mostly being a lob threat that's pretty good. Similarly, if he could put the ball on the floor 15 feet out and 2 step into a dunk if you don't seal him...again huge deal. And if he could also make a quick pass if you get confused and 2 close out of him...again big deal.

[dhsilv2]

Again Capela peaked at 16.6 a game at 33 minutes. Passing ability plus having more ability to put the ball on the floor greatly reduces the negatives of poor shooting. It doesn't negate it. Russell would have some spacing issues.

Yeah, 5 years ago on the 2019 Rockets with
Harden the year after his MVP (he finished 2nd). That is relevant context. He also managed 14+ ppg twice in his career. Capela was okay, but he was only so useful.

Capela's best years in terms of combining volume and efficiency came when playing with two of the most prolific and skilled PnR playmakers of all time, on the same team, as arguably the sole big of the team in that finishing role, with lots of spacing given how 3-happy the Rockets were.

That cannot be the basis of a comparison to what a hypothetical Russell may do on offense.

Trae Young? Prolific? I mean we can cover that Gobert has been able to have 16 point a game years as well with incompetent wings on his team if you'd like. It's to try and illustrate that rim running bigs without passing, dribbling, or post games can do that. So seeing someone with all of that as a 3-4 point better scorer isn't a crazy stretch.

[tsherkin]

Again Capela peaked at 16.6 a game at 33 minutes. Passing ability plus having more ability to put the ball on the floor greatly reduces the negatives of poor shooting. It doesn't negate it. Russell would have some spacing issues.

Yeah, 5 years ago on the 2019 Rockets with
Harden the year after his MVP (he finished 2nd). That is relevant context. He also managed 14+ ppg twice in his career. Capela was okay, but he was only so useful.

People want to paint Russell closer to Ben Wallace or Dennis Rodman than what he'd be. Which is much more likely a slightly better Capella type of lob threat with some post moves if you need them in a pinch and some ball handling.

This is non-sequitur, as I am not doing that.

I have already agreed that he would shoot well based on deployment and have been speaking of him scoring in the teens at above league average efficiency. None of that looks like Bem Wallace or Dennis Rodman at all.

Perhaps you are.mistaking my comments about Capela for the projected version of Russ?

I'm not really arguing as much as trying to better paint what he'd be. A lob threat like Capella who could put the ball on the floor, pass, and has more touch and post moves is a pretty useful guy. If Capella could get the ball and make a quick move to score on a smaller guy vs mostly being a lob threat that's pretty good. Similarly, if he could put the ball on the floor 15 feet out and 2 step into a dunk if you don't seal him...again huge deal. And if he could also make a quick pass if you get confused and 2 close out of him...again big deal.

If it's for an audience beyond me, cool. If it's for me, I meam, we agree. All of the stylistic remarks are baked into why I have repeatefly acknowledged that his FG% would rise. He'd make a useful 3rd or 4th option with that style of play, for sure. Nothing dramatic and not worth iso touches too much, definitely not a scoring threat past the foul line but still useful overall.

Wouldnt try to turnhim into a 20+ ppg guy, though.

[dhsilv2]

Yeah, 5 years ago on the 2019 Rockets with
Harden the year after his MVP (he finished 2nd). That is relevant context. He also managed 14+ ppg twice in his career. Capela was okay, but he was only so useful.



This is non-sequitur, as I am not doing that.

I have already agreed that he would shoot well based on deployment and have been speaking of him scoring in the teens at above league average efficiency. None of that looks like Bem Wallace or Dennis Rodman at all.

Perhaps you are.mistaking my comments about Capela for the projected version of Russ?

I'm not really arguing as much as trying to better paint what he'd be. A lob threat like Capella who could put the ball on the floor, pass, and has more touch and post moves is a pretty useful guy. If Capella could get the ball and make a quick move to score on a smaller guy vs mostly being a lob threat that's pretty good. Similarly, if he could put the ball on the floor 15 feet out and 2 step into a dunk if you don't seal him...again huge deal. And if he could also make a quick pass if you get confused and 2 close out of him...again big deal.

If it's for an audience beyond me, cool. If it's for me, I meam, we agree. All of the stylistic remarks are baked into why I have repeatefly acknowledged that his FG% would rise. He'd make a useful 3rd or 4th option with that style of play, for sure. Nothing dramatic and not worth iso touches too much, definitely not a scoring threat past the foul line but still useful overall.

Wouldnt try to turnhim into a 20+ ppg guy, though.

My point to you was to not discount the passing and ball handling. The rest was more general.

I think he could very much be a tool like a daymond/capella mish/mash. I just don't know what that offense looks like. But I think he's a guy a good coach would take the time to figure out. Cause he can't shoot in a curry dray pick and roll like dray. But he can put the ball on the floor and pass...and obviously he's a way better lob guy than Dray. I think he'd be a great 3rd option with a fairly central passing hub type role.

But again i just don't know what that looks like in terms of an offense. We don't have a lot of guys who have as much skill as Russell with his obvious shooting issues and then his freak athletics.

[tsherkin]

My point to you was to not discount the passing and ball handling. The rest was more general.

I hear you. I wouldnt run the ball to him ala Draymond, but Sacramento Vlade or Chicago Joakim Noah make some sense. It'd be simpler just not to run the ball to him except for plays he should finish, though, and let your perimeter guys and bigs with range be more active.

It just seems like a lot of effort to do otherwise and with little certainty that it would be better. I like Russ. I think he would be a killer rebounder and one of the very best defenders in the league. But he just wasnt a monster on O, which is forgiveable.

[One_and_Done]

Who would the archetype for Russell even be? Even if he was Gobert, Gobert is not a top 10 player.

The thing is that we don't really know how a guy like Russell could have developed if he was born in the late 90s/00s.
He had his formative years in the 40s/50s, with different level of coaching he could have today.
Once you look at his raw tools you can notice his feel, his quickness, even a decent handling. Not sure about his touch.
What could a modern skills coach to with that?
Not saying he could have been anything (even a boat!) but he already had more diverse skillset than Rudy, likely more similar to Domas.
And Domas with DPoY level defense is a MVP candidate, easily.

As I've explained many times, you can only judge guys by what they actually did, and that includes the skillset they actually had. It's also pretty ridiculous to just prop Russell, who had zero offense almost, with the abilities of one of the more skilled offensive bigs out there. Why not give him Curry's 3pt shooting and passing while you're at it.

[dhsilv2]

My point to you was to not discount the passing and ball handling. The rest was more general.

I hear you. I wouldnt run the ball to him ala Draymond, but Sacramento Vlade or Chicago Joakim Noah make some sense. It'd be simpler just not to run the ball to him except for plays he should finish, though, and let your perimeter guys and bigs with range be more active.

It just seems like a lot of effort to do otherwise and with little certainty that it would be better. I like Russ. I think he would be a killer rebounder and one of the very best defenders in the league. But he just wasnt a monster on O, which is forgiveable.

I think he'd fit well in a pick and roll setup. The first option isn't for him to end up with the ball making the decisions. But I think it could happen plenty. And I'm not against a quick strike to the post where he kicks out. I'm not sure you want him as your hub like Dray...but man Russell was sharp. I'm not sure how fast he'd adapt obviously...we're obviously just speculating.

[dhsilv2]

Who would the archetype for Russell even be? Even if he was Gobert, Gobert is not a top 10 player.

The thing is that we don't really know how a guy like Russell could have developed if he was born in the late 90s/00s.
He had his formative years in the 40s/50s, with different level of coaching he could have today.
Once you look at his raw tools you can notice his feel, his quickness, even a decent handling. Not sure about his touch.
What could a modern skills coach to with that?
Not saying he could have been anything (even a boat!) but he already had more diverse skillset than Rudy, likely more similar to Domas.
And Domas with DPoY level defense is a MVP candidate, easily.

As I've explained many times, you can only judge guys by what they actually did, and that includes the skillset they actually had. It's also pretty ridiculous to just prop Russell, who had zero offense almost, with the abilities of one of the more skilled offensive bigs out there. Why not give him Curry's 3pt shooting and passing while you're at it.

When did you last watch an actual Bill Russell game? And one not against wilt.

[One_and_Done]

It's an irrelevant question. His game looks nothing like Sabonis, who is one of the more skilled and cerebral bigs out there.

There's also a reason guys like Sabonis can't play like Gobert and vice versa. There are physical abilities that are mutually exclusive to each other. You can't be as tall as Gobert and still dribble like a guard, even Wemby who is a freak can't do that (and his body type is very different to Gobert in some ways).

[tsherkin]

My point to you was to not discount the passing and ball handling. The rest was more general.

I hear you. I wouldnt run the ball to him ala Draymond, but Sacramento Vlade or Chicago Joakim Noah make some sense. It'd be simpler just not to run the ball to him except for plays he should finish, though, and let your perimeter guys and bigs with range be more active.

It just seems like a lot of effort to do otherwise and with little certainty that it would be better. I like Russ. I think he would be a killer rebounder and one of the very best defenders in the league. But he just wasnt a monster on O, which is forgiveable.

I think he'd fit well in a pick and roll setup. The first option isn't for him to end up with the ball making the decisions. But I think it could happen plenty. And I'm not against a quick strike to the post where he kicks out. I'm not sure you want him as your hub like Dray...but man Russell was sharp. I'm not sure how fast he'd adapt obviously...we're obviously just speculating.

Oh yeah, he would be a great roll man. No range to pop, but if you let him roll or pass, very dangerous.

[FrodoBaggins]

Sabonis can't play like Gobert because of his lack of size and verticality on both ends. Has very short arms and mediocre jumping ability. And Gobert can't play like Sabonis because he lacks certain qualities, such as ball handling and passing. And the general coordination to leverage those basketball skills.

Bill absolutely could play like both of them at the same time. He wouldn't need to rely on a paint-extended scoring game like Domas. Because of his freakish combination of size and athleticism, he'd bully his way to the rim ala Giannis. Would have no issues being able to dribble the ball and pass out of pick-and-roll and hand-off actions from the nail/elbow/high-post/free-throw line.

[tsherkin]

Bill absolutely could play like both of them at the same time. He wouldn't need to rely on a paint-extended scoring game like Domas. Because of his freakish combination of size and athleticism, he'd bully his way to the rim ala Giannis. Would have no issues being able to dribble the ball and pass out of pick-and-roll and hand-off actions from the nail/elbow/high-post/free-throw line.

We saw bigs with slashing ability in Russ' era and Boston's offense wasnt anything to write home about. I think expecting Giannis out of a guy who was only okay offensively in his own time is probably a little much.

[FrodoBaggins]

Bill absolutely could play like both of them at the same time. He wouldn't need to rely on a paint-extended scoring game like Domas. Because of his freakish combination of size and athleticism, he'd bully his way to the rim ala Giannis. Would have no issues being able to dribble the ball and pass out of pick-and-roll and hand-off actions from the nail/elbow/high-post/free-throw line.

We saw bigs with slashing ability in Russ' era and Boston's offense wasnt anything to write home about. I think expecting Giannis out of a guy who was only okay offensively in his own time is probably a little much.

And I'm sure those bigs had more finesse to their games. As I'm sure you know, the dribbling, carrying, and travelling rules were extremely restrictive. As was the level of physicality allowed by an offensive player. Hence why Wilt wasn't playing like Shaq. I'm sure you already know this.

The nuance of how a player accomplishes a dribble-drive to the rim matters. What do you think Giannis would look like in the late '50s and '60s? About as limited as Russ, because he'd be called for a carry, travel, or offensive foul every time he attempted to score. And like Russ, he doesn't have the finesse to fall back on.

I'm just not putting too much stock in Bill's scoring numbers from an era where the rules and interpretations and the Celtics style of play suppressed his offensive strengths. And despite that, he was 105 2PT+ and more or less league-average TS% in regular season and post-season play.

Imagine if he wasn't taking mid-range jump shots and post-up isolations. And was allowed to handle the ball like today's players and leverage his physical gifts to shoulder charge his way to the rim.

[FrodoBaggins]

Now does that mean I think he'd be full-blown Giannis as a penetrator? Not necessarily, which is why I stated face-up slashing as a swing skill for him in the OP. And gave a very generous 16-24 ppg estimate.

But playing like Sabonis out of the high post and completing bully-ball dribble drives doesn't mean he's Giannis. We're talking about one or two dribbles. I don't think it's a stretch to think Bill with his freakish concoction of size, athleticism, and competent ball handling could be dynamic as a creator (slashing + passing) out of hand-off and short roll actions.

Like Draymond Green or Joakim Noah but with way more functional size (standing reach, wingspan, weight) and David Robinson-level athleticism (quickness, speed, power, etc).

[FuShengTHEGreat]

Perhaps today....but with his skillset not in the 90s

[Mirotic12]

There is no way that Russell would win 11 championships if he played now. So no, he wouldn't be as good.

[Rishkar]

Who would the archetype for Russell even be? Even if he was Gobert, Gobert is not a top 10 player.

More athletic and taller Draymond Green would be a good starting place.

Draymond could (in his prime) hit a 3 passably. Draymond was also an insanely cerebral defender, and played point guard in college. I have no confidence in Russell having point guard skills, even if he 'could pass a bit', and the defenses Russell co-ordinated in his day were too simplistic for me to believe it can compare to prime Draymond's level of awareness.

Russell was a better passer, ball handler, man defender, help defender, finisher, and rebounder than Draymond. He also had a much better feel for the game, got along better with teammates, and didn't bleed value through fouls and ejections.

[dbrog24]

Just came here to say, I could see the Duncan w less O and more D. But instead I think the better comp w modern coaching/medicine would actually be a prime Dwight Howard w ball handling, better rebounding fundamentals, and passing...which is truly insane if you think about it.

Frodo made a good post a couple pages back about the amount of spacing allowing for easy dunks and dirty work boards and buckets. I've watched probably around 20 games from Russ and idk how anyone who did the same would say he would be taken off the court due to "lack of offense" which has been spouted here.

We are alrdy seeing the warping effect that wemby has on teams offenses when they face him...which is kinda an evolved version of what we saw w those Dwight Orlando teams. B Russell would absolutely be blocking dudes jumpers and running around screens and some of you fools think he would be bench player haha. Just my 2 cents

[tsherkin]

And I'm sure those bigs had more finesse to their games. As I'm sure you know, the dribbling, carrying, and travelling rules were extremely restrictive. As was the level of physicality allowed by an offensive player. Hence why Wilt wasn't playing like Shaq. I'm sure you already know this.

None of that is relevant to the guys in Russell's own era who did a better job on O, which is about whom I was speaking.

The nuance of how a player accomplishes a dribble-drive to the rim matters. What do you think Giannis would look like in the late '50s and '60s? About as limited as Russ, because he'd be called for a carry, travel, or offensive foul every time he attempted to score. And like Russ, he doesn't have the finesse to fall back on.

Giannis would be better with just using his power in the post than was Russ. I doubt he'd be scoring 30 ppg and I doubt he'd approach the game the same way, sure, but he had tools Russ didn't. And was slightly better at the line.

And despite that, he was 105 2PT+ and more or less league-average TS% in regular season and post-season play.

Right, and one would expect (as has been laboriously repeated ITT) Russ' raw efficiency to rise some. But there is no guarantee he'd be able to manipulate his handle to any meaningful degree and he's a worse FT shooter than Giannis and he had no range to speak of. So there's reason to doubt.

Imagine if he wasn't taking mid-range jump shots and post-up isolations. And was allowed to handle the ball like today's players and leverage his physical gifts to shoulder charge his way to the rim.

I don't think it would matter. The guys who drove successfully in his era didn't have any of that and they managed just fine. He did not. Like, Walt Bellamy was WAAAAAAY better than Russell on offense and his first season was 1962. AND he was pretty weak at the line too. Russ just wasn't very good at scoring stuff. And 62 was basically the last season he was an above average dude on O, as the league evolved. He had two seasons of league-average or better efficiency after 1960, it's worth remembering. He didn't scale well relative to his peers. He DID draw fouls well and he was a wonderful offensive rebounder, and as has already been discussed at some length, there were ways to help him be useful and efficient on O in today's game...

But affording him a skillset he didn't really have or show signs of doesn't make a lot of sense. Especially since there were guys in his own time doing it just fine. It's not like he was grossly limited compared to his peers in terms of handle.