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

[Hair Jordan]

Dwight Howard could rebound and play some defense. His offense sucked. He managed to win a bunch of DPOTY awards, almost won an MVP, beat prime Lebron without HCA and took a lowly Orlando team to the Finals. If an immature ass clown like Dwight could do that I can only imagine what an intelligent, prideful, insanely competitive winner like Bill Russell could do. Anyone who sells him short is not only being disrespectful but also downright ignorant.

[tsherkin]

Dwight Howard could rebound and play some defense. His offense sucked. He managed to win a bunch of DPOTY awards, almost won an MVP, beat prime Lebron without HCA and took a lowly Orlando team to the Finals. If an immature ass clown like Dwight could do that I can only imagine what an intelligent, prideful, insanely competitive winner like Bill Russell could do. Anyone who sells him short is not only being disrespectful but also downright ignorant.

Dwight Howard's offense did not suck. You can't actually know anything about Dwight and think that the case.

He had his limitations, for sure, but Dwight was an extremely powerful force, particularly while he was listening to SVG and not over-isolating. He was also much more dangerous around the basket than Russell would ever be.

Russ wasn't about to lead the NBA in FG%, which Dwight did in 2010.

Meantime, it's also worth mentioning that what you're talking about happened almost 15 years ago, and the league has undergone notable changes since then. And as a result, the offense which a guy like Dwight was able to manage wouldn't cut it in today's league environment. League average efficiency then was around 4% worse. That change has significantly undercut someone like Klay, too. Dwight's career average is about 0.8% better than league average the past couple seasons.

Further, Orlando wasn't "lowly" at all. It was well-coached and had pretty good depth compared to in-era peers. Hedo, Jameer, Shard. Redick. They were a sound team, particularly in the East.

[One_and_Done]

Dwight Howard could rebound and play some defense. His offense sucked. He managed to win a bunch of DPOTY awards, almost won an MVP, beat prime Lebron without HCA and took a lowly Orlando team to the Finals. If an immature ass clown like Dwight could do that I can only imagine what an intelligent, prideful, insanely competitive winner like Bill Russell could do. Anyone who sells him short is not only being disrespectful but also downright ignorant.

Dwight Howard's offense did not suck. You can't actually know anything about Dwight and think that the case.

He had his limitations, for sure, but Dwight was an extremely powerful force, particularly while he was listening to SVG and not over-isolating. He was also much more dangerous around the basket than Russell would ever be.

Russ wasn't about to lead the NBA in FG%, which Dwight did in 2010.

Meantime, it's also worth mentioning that what you're talking about happened almost 15 years ago, and the league has undergone notable changes since then. And as a result, the offense which a guy like Dwight was able to manage wouldn't cut it in today's league environment. League average efficiency then was around 4% worse. That change has significantly undercut someone like Klay, too. Dwight's career average is about 0.8% better than league average the past couple seasons.

Further, Orlando wasn't "lowly" at all. It was well-coached and had pretty good depth compared to in-era peers. Hedo, Jameer, Shard. Redick. They were a sound team, particularly in the East.

Dwight was better on offense than Bill Russell would be today.

[tsherkin]

Dwight was better on offense than Bill Russell would be today.

Dwight was wielded quite well by the Magic for a couple seasons before his ego got in the way.

[chicago paxsons]

I could see russell's impact on offense being greater than it was when he played. He was already an excellent passer with great vision, but add the floor spacing of the current era and that would allow him to be an offensive hub in spurts. Also, the floor spacing completely opens up the inside for him as a cutter/slasher.

Russell didn't have great shot percentages, but was consistently above league average in his career while being an inside scorer in an era where everyone clogged the paint. His era was also pretty unforgiving to offensive players. An offensive player creating contact would often end in an offensive foul, whereas the current era gives the benefit of the doubt to the offensive player.

I'm not saying he'd be elite inside, but with what he did in his era, i can't seeing him being anything but more impactful at scoring with all the changes to the game that benefit the offensive player. He'd still be a bad free throw shooter though.

We are also talking about a guy who's all-time great athlete even by modern basketball standards.

[FrodoBaggins]

My god, that standing reach. Ridiculously high release. Guys like Bill, Tim Duncan, and Nate Thurmond were such cheat codes on defense. No wonder all three were so great at staying vertical and not leaving the ground to block shots. Russell and TD were both extremely efficient regarding contesting shots and not fouling. I'm not sure about Nate but I wouldn't be surprised if he too was similar.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

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.

that's your pov.
I like instead to project how guys could have evolved in different eras, looking at how their actual career went through.
In particular when you go so much back in time talking about guys that are basically pioneers who had to figure out things that we consider obvious now.

[One_and_Done]

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.

that's your pov.
I like instead to project how guys could have evolved in different eras, looking at how their actual career went through.
In particular when you go so much back in time talking about guys that are basically pioneers who had to figure out things that we consider obvious now.

Your imaginary player sounds great, but he loses to my imaginary version of Shaq who could shoot 3s and pass like J.Will.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Someday people will have trouble explaining why Jokic is such a phenom.

Russell was special and perhaps you needed to see him to understand how great a plyer he was. I saw him play against Wilt and it was unforgettable. Still, I would have a difficult time explaining why he was such a phenom. Maybe the number of championships is all you need to know.

Russell was hella special. He wouldnt exert the same impact in a league a half century after hw changed the game (no one really would), but he was a monster, no doubt.

I think that guys who showed a great understanding of the game and ability to evolve and innovate during their time have a vey high chance to keep further improving if exposed to better training and teaching.
The player we would see now is not that same player who dominated 60 years ago, that's for sure.
But there's a lot of uncertainty, so the range of possible outcomes is much wider then, say, a 90s player.
But I really recommend to look at the fluidity of his moves as a hint, he as clearly not Gobert (who is not really that stiffy himself, though).

[Ryoga Hibiki]

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.

As I mentioned other times, look at Sabonis and add him being of a vertical threat.
Without speculating too much about his skill development that's a very likely outcome, I think it's very misleading to keep mentioning the likes of Rudy or Capela.
The key element would be his ability in the short roll, and being a hub in delay actions. Once you have that, paired with the vertical threat, you have a very positive offensive player already.

[chicago paxsons]

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.

that's your pov.
I like instead to project how guys could have evolved in different eras, looking at how their actual career went through.
In particular when you go so much back in time talking about guys that are basically pioneers who had to figure out things that we consider obvious now.

Your imaginary player sounds great, but he loses to my imaginary version of Shaq who could shoot 3s and pass like J.Will.

We get your schtick already.

Older players = bad because they were great a long time ago.

Current players = best ever because you're watching them now.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

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.

that's your pov.
I like instead to project how guys could have evolved in different eras, looking at how their actual career went through.
In particular when you go so much back in time talking about guys that are basically pioneers who had to figure out things that we consider obvious now.

Your imaginary player sounds great, but he loses to my imaginary version of Shaq who could shoot 3s and pass like J.Will.

newsflash, we're just speculating no matter what, we only saw this guys in their time.
even Shaq, you do not actually know for certain how his game would have translated today. He had tons of weaknesses in terms of footspeed and conditioning that would have been exposed today WITHOUT a proper adjustement.

anyway, if you want to just play the "teleport game" and have that same guy play in a different era ok, fine, whatever. Not interested.

[One_and_Done]

that's your pov.
I like instead to project how guys could have evolved in different eras, looking at how their actual career went through.
In particular when you go so much back in time talking about guys that are basically pioneers who had to figure out things that we consider obvious now.

Your imaginary player sounds great, but he loses to my imaginary version of Shaq who could shoot 3s and pass like J.Will.

newsflash, we're just speculating no matter what, we only saw this guys in their time.
even Shaq, you do not actually know for certain how his game would have translated today. He had tons of weaknesses in terms of footspeed and conditioning that would have been exposed today WITHOUT a proper adjustement.

anyway, if you want to just play the "teleport game" and have that same guy play in a different era ok, fine, whatever. Not interested.

We're speculating about 2 things that existed with my methodology; actual Russell with his actual skillset vs actual Shaq with Shaq's actual skillset. With your approach we're comparing 2 imaginary players. If Shaq was born later maybe he'd have learned to shoot 3s. Maybe Walton would have been healthier with modern medicine. Maybe Sheed would have played harder. Maybe Len Bias would have lived. At the end of the day it's just too speculative to compare players that way.

Nobody is denying Russell or Shaq the chance to 'adjust', we're discussing how good he or Shaq would be if their skillset was teleported I to today and used in an optimal way for today's game. Russell can adapt to deploy his skills differently. What it's not fair to do is grant him skills he never had.

If Demar played in the 80s everyone here would be saying 'a guy like that? No doubt he develops a 3' yet Demar does play today, and despite his amazing jump shooting from midrange he still can't hit 3s. It's just too uncertain to say a guy would develop different skills, and it's always assumed guys can when in reality they often can't and we don't know why.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Your imaginary player sounds great, but he loses to my imaginary version of Shaq who could shoot 3s and pass like J.Will.

newsflash, we're just speculating no matter what, we only saw this guys in their time.
even Shaq, you do not actually know for certain how his game would have translated today. He had tons of weaknesses in terms of footspeed and conditioning that would have been exposed today WITHOUT a proper adjustement.

anyway, if you want to just play the "teleport game" and have that same guy play in a different era ok, fine, whatever. Not interested.

We're speculating about 2 things that existed with my methodology; actual Russell with his actual skillset vs actual Shaq with Shaq's actual skillset. With your approach we're comparing 2 imaginary players. If Shaq was born later maybe he'd have learned to shoot 3s. Maybe Walton would have been healthier with modern medicine. Maybe Sheed would have played harder. Maybe Len Bias would have lived. At the end of the day it's just too speculative to compare players that way.

Nobody is denying Russell or Shaq the chance to 'adjust', we're discussing how good he or Shaq would be if their skillset was teleported I to today and used in an optimal way for today's game. Russell can adapt to deploy his skills differently. What it's not fair to do is grant him skills he never had.

If Demar played in the 80s everyone here would be saying 'a guy like that? No doubt he develops a 3' yet Demar does play today, and despite his amazing jump shooting from midrange he still can't hit 3s. It's just too uncertain to say a guy would develop different skills, and it's always assumed guys can when in reality they often can't and we don't know why.

fine, nothing is right or wrong.
I am just not very interested in that kind of conversation.
In particular for very old player.

[Wargreymon]

Yeah he would be a better version of Rudy Gobert in today’s game for sure.

[tsherkin]

I think that guys who showed a great understanding of the game and ability to evolve and innovate during their time have a vey high chance to keep further improving if exposed to better training and teaching.
The player we would see now is not that same player who dominated 60 years ago, that's for sure.
But there's a lot of uncertainty, so the range of possible outcomes is much wider then, say, a 90s player.
But I really recommend to look at the fluidity of his moves as a hint, he as clearly not Gobert (who is not really that stiffy himself, though).

He was certainly more confident and fluid in his movement than Gobert, but again, we're talking about a guy who didn't match what peers in-era were doing, so projecting him forward as a much better offensive player seems... off-kilter to me. It's possible that the different environment of coaching and game style would change things, but I doubt that would change too much. It didn't seem to be his bag. Again, we can't know for sure, but it seems unlikely to me.

[theonlyclutch]

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.

As I mentioned other times, look at Sabonis and add him being of a vertical threat.
Without speculating too much about his skill development that's a very likely outcome, I think it's very misleading to keep mentioning the likes of Rudy or Capela.
The key element would be his ability in the short roll, and being a hub in delay actions. Once you have that, paired with the vertical threat, you have a very positive offensive player already.

The Centers with Domas skillsets in passing/creation are near exclusively from overseas backgrounds, Domas played youth/club basketball in Spain, Sengun in Turkey, Jokic in Serbia, even 'lesser' players in this aspect like Giannis have their roots playing in Greece.
The only American exception here is Draymond and he obviously benefitted from having much of his developmental years training forward/guard skills (lack of size and all) , something that Russell wound not have.

If the question here is how Bill Russell, raised as the same archetype, would fare today, then discounting how their developmental environments would affect skillset development (or lack thereof) seems like a big oversight.

[dhsilv2]

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.

Russell was NOT a better passer or ball handler. At best their handles were similar and Dray is clearly the better passer of the two based on film. Now could Russell look better in a modern system, perhaps, but we have zero data or evidence to support that.

[dhsilv2]

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.

As I mentioned other times, look at Sabonis and add him being of a vertical threat.
Without speculating too much about his skill development that's a very likely outcome, I think it's very misleading to keep mentioning the likes of Rudy or Capela.
The key element would be his ability in the short roll, and being a hub in delay actions. Once you have that, paired with the vertical threat, you have a very positive offensive player already.

The problem with Sabonis is that Russell couldn't shoot. And as others have pointed out, he couldn't shoot free throws. I'm willing to grant he might today be a 65% free throw shooter which is reasonable to contest but I don't think unreasonable to grant. Sabonis is a good mid range shooter and has range out the 3 point line. It's much harder to be a hub like he is without a shooting threat from some distance. Thus we need to limit our expectations of Russell to transition, lobs, and the occasional 3rd option type mismatch in the post. While he would likely at times work as a high post hub, his limitations as a scoring threat from there would matter. To your point, his level of offense would be somewhere between a capela and sabonis.

[dhsilv2]

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.

As I mentioned other times, look at Sabonis and add him being of a vertical threat.
Without speculating too much about his skill development that's a very likely outcome, I think it's very misleading to keep mentioning the likes of Rudy or Capela.
The key element would be his ability in the short roll, and being a hub in delay actions. Once you have that, paired with the vertical threat, you have a very positive offensive player already.

The Centers with Domas skillsets in passing/creation are near exclusively from overseas backgrounds, Domas played youth/club basketball in Spain, Sengun in Turkey, Jokic in Serbia, even 'lesser' players in this aspect like Giannis have their roots playing in Greece.
The only American exception here is Draymond and he obviously benefitted from having much of his developmental years training forward/guard skills (lack of size and all) , something that Russell wound not have.

If the question here is how Bill Russell, raised as the same archetype, would fare today, then discounting how their developmental environments would affect skillset development (or lack thereof) seems like a big oversight.

Walton was the greatest passing big man until Jokic took that title and he was an American not that far removed from Russell. I'd add that both Kareem and Shaq were very good passers in their own rights.

One of the reasons you see so many good passing big men from overseas is that we just see more big men from overseas than any other position because there are just less tall people on the planet so teams have scouted and recruited big guys from over seasons for longer.