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

[theonlyclutch]

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.

Walton/Kareem was over 50 years ago and even Shaq is from 20-25 years ago from a developmental point of view. In the context of how a Bill Russell is likely to develop and play in the modern era that's not particularly relevant. Perhaps the best example we see that is playing now is Bam, but that's not exactly someone you want as an offensive hub.

[tsherkin]

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.

I'd argue it has more to do with usage. Bigs aren't typically deployed as passing hubs in college, and certainly not in high school ball, so there's little space for them to develop as happened with Kareem and Walton and UCLA and all that.

[tsherkin]

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.

While I think it unlikely that he'd be a 10% better FT shooter during his career, his career-high was 61.2% at the line and he managed 60%+ twice. It isn't unreasonable to think he might do that as his peak.

The rest of that makes plenty of sense, though.

[dhsilv2]

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.

Walton/Kareem was over 50 years ago and even Shaq is from 20-25 years ago from a developmental point of view. In the context of how a Bill Russell is likely to develop and play in the modern era that's not particularly relevant. Perhaps the best example we see that is playing now is Bam, but that's not exactly someone you want as an offensive hub.

There aren't a lot of 6'11 people alive. Legit 7'0 men under 40 and over 16 is estimated to be less than 2,000 on the entire planet earth. Most of which aren't born in America. So having a really tall dude who happens to have great passing skills is far more likely to be the result of someone just having natural gifts than coaching. Because there just aren't that many people this tall to coach in the first place.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

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.

Domas doesn't really shoot, though, like once per game outside the paint. And he's not really defended as a shooter.
Even if it looks he has decent percentages from the mid range that's not his game.
I think more fair is if Russell would be the same screener as Domas, very had for me to compare that given the totally different rules in place.
Anyway, I think his role in the offense would look more similar to Domas than Rudy.
Or if you want Draymond.

[dhsilv2]

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.

While I think it unlikely that he'd be a 10% better FT shooter during his career, his career-high was 61.2% at the line and he managed 60%+ twice. It isn't unreasonable to think he might do that as his peak.

The rest of that makes plenty of sense, though.

I stand by he shot over 60% in 165 playoff games. If you drop his first 2 seasons and include playoffs we're around 58%. I'm standing firm that today's coaches could help make him roughly 5% better. But anyway

[dhsilv2]

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.

I'd argue it has more to do with usage. Bigs aren't typically deployed as passing hubs in college, and certainly not in high school ball, so there's little space for them to develop as happened with Kareem and Walton and UCLA and all that.

That could be, but AD was developed as a shooting guard in high school. He never learned to pass. Some guys just have a natural knack for it and others don't. There are just so few big people on the planet.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

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.

What about Olynyk?

[tsherkin]

I stand by he shot over 60% in 165 playoff games.

165 playoff games. 963+ regular season games...

If you drop his first 2 seasons and include playoffs we're around 58%. I'm standing firm that today's coaches could help make him roughly 5% better. But anyway

We can agree to disagree on that, no doubt.

That could be, but AD was developed as a shooting guard in high school. He never learned to pass. Some guys just have a natural knack for it and others don't. There are just so few big people on the planet.

Yeah but he also went from 6'2 to 6'10 between his sophomore and junior year, so there's that to chew on when thinking about his development arc.

[dhsilv2]

I stand by he shot over 60% in 165 playoff games.

165 playoff games. 963+ regular season games...

If you drop his first 2 seasons and include playoffs we're around 58%. I'm standing firm that today's coaches could help make him roughly 5% better. But anyway

We can agree to disagree on that, no doubt.

That could be, but AD was developed as a shooting guard in high school. He never learned to pass. Some guys just have a natural knack for it and others don't. There are just so few big people on the planet.

Yeah but he also went from 6'2 to 6'10 between his sophomore and junior year, so there's that to chew on when thinking about his development arc.

Do you think reading cuts or finding the open guy gets harder or easier when you're taller? Like, we all know WHY he moved from a guard to a big man. But passing all else equal should be easier if you're looking down and can see over people to see the court better. But AD still didn't seem to retain any passing skills from younger development.

[dhsilv2]

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.

Domas doesn't really shoot, though, like once per game outside the paint. And he's not really defended as a shooter.
Even if it looks he has decent percentages from the mid range that's not his game.
I think more fair is if Russell would be the same screener as Domas, very had for me to compare that given the totally different rules in place.
Anyway, I think his role in the offense would look more similar to Domas than Rudy.
Or if you want Draymond.

He took about 12% of his shots outside of 10 feet last year and that was lower than most other years. Teams absolutely have to respect his ability to shoot if open regardless. It's about teams feeling the need to guard it.

[tsherkin]

Do you think reading cuts or finding the open guy gets harder or easier when you're taller? Like, we all know WHY he moved from a guard to a big man. But passing all else equal should be easier if you're looking down and can see over people to see the court better. But AD still didn't seem to retain any passing skills from younger development.

I think it's relevant to his ball-handling and passing, as far as skill development is concerned.

[dhsilv2]

Do you think reading cuts or finding the open guy gets harder or easier when you're taller? Like, we all know WHY he moved from a guard to a big man. But passing all else equal should be easier if you're looking down and can see over people to see the court better. But AD still didn't seem to retain any passing skills from younger development.

I think it's relevant to his ball-handling and passing, as far as skill development is concerned.

Do we just evaluate a lot of bad passing guards as better passers because they can dribble and get more time to finally make a good read, despite missing read after read?

[tsherkin]

Do we just evaluate a lot of bad passing guards as better passers because they can dribble and get more time to finally make a good read, despite missing read after read?

This isn't salient to my point, so I won't address it.

He was trained as a guard because he was guard size. He wasn't NOT trained to pass. He has some guard-like skills because he was small and worked as such. Yeah, he wasn't a point guard, and yes, some of it is innate in terms of vision and motivation and all that. AD has a good sense of the floor, particularly for off-ball stuff. He's a smart player. He's made of glass, which is a shame, because he generally fills his role on the floor in a way I wish we would see more of from other bigs (although it's far better these days than it has been at other times in the past quarter century). He's fun to watch as a result.

Anyway, my point was that a lot of Davis' ability to attack from triple threat and with any kind of dribble is at least partially rooted in learning to play the game as a smaller dude. That was less true of Russell, as far as anything I've read has suggested. Thus, using AD as a point of comparison doesn't feel fully accurate.

[dhsilv2]

Do we just evaluate a lot of bad passing guards as better passers because they can dribble and get more time to finally make a good read, despite missing read after read?

This isn't salient to my point, so I won't address it.

He was trained as a guard because he was guard size. He wasn't NOT trained to pass. He has some guard-like skills because he was small and worked as such. Yeah, he wasn't a point guard, and yes, some of it is innate in terms of vision and motivation and all that. AD has a good sense of the floor, particularly for off-ball stuff. He's a smart player. He's made of glass, which is a shame, because he generally fills his role on the floor in a way I wish we would see more of from other bigs (although it's far better these days than it has been at other times in the past quarter century). He's fun to watch as a result.

Anyway, my point was that a lot of Davis' ability to attack from triple threat and with any kind of dribble is at least partially rooted in learning to play the game as a smaller dude. That was less true of Russell, as far as anything I've read has suggested. Thus, using AD as a point of comparison doesn't feel fully accurate.

So your claim isn't that we don't teach big men to pass because they're big men. But we don't teach passing in the US system at all? Or are you going to the extreme that we ONLY teach point guards to pass?

I asked about the dribbling as I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from as to who and when we teach people how to read a cut for a pass or when to throw the ball to someone who's in motion to get open.

[tsherkin]

So your claim isn't that we don't teach big men to pass because they're big men. But we don't teach passing in the US system at all? Or are you going to the extreme that we ONLY teach point guards to pass?

Yeah, I'm saying that high school ball is much worse in the US than professional basketball in Europe in terms of skill development and how they deploy their bigs. If you're talking about passing hubs, then you don't generally see that sort of deployment. It's a lot more guard/wing oriented, and much less about actual skill development. College is better, but guys don't stay very long most of the time, so it's also somewhat immaterial.

I don't really see this as a contentious proposition. AAU ball is ugly ass, most certainly compared to an actual professional league with any sort of continuity. This isn't news. Fundamentals are not the strength of American developmental basketball, this is well-known.

I don't really understand why you're making up extreme remarks here. Yeah, there are basics, this is known. You can see guys know how to make basic kick-outs and stuff, but there's nothing like the same level of development or usage for bigs in the American system compared to overseas. We're seeing better-shooting bigs now that they aren't being forced to just stand under the rim and be large, so that's nice. More face-up attack and handles, too. But in terms of passing, that still notably lags behind, except for the talents who elevate themselves.

[dhsilv2]

So your claim isn't that we don't teach big men to pass because they're big men. But we don't teach passing in the US system at all? Or are you going to the extreme that we ONLY teach point guards to pass?

Yeah, I'm saying that high school ball is much worse in the US than professional basketball in Europe in terms of skill development and how they deploy their bigs. If you're talking about passing hubs, then you don't generally see that sort of deployment. It's a lot more guard/wing oriented, and much less about actual skill development. College is better, but guys don't stay very long most of the time, so it's also somewhat immaterial.

I don't really see this as a contentious proposition. AAU ball is ugly ass, most certainly compared to an actual professional league with any sort of continuity. This isn't news. Fundamentals are not the strength of American developmental basketball, this is well-known.

I don't really understand why you're making up extreme remarks here. Yeah, there are basics, this is known. You can see guys know how to make basic kick-outs and stuff, but there's nothing like the same level of development or usage for bigs in the American system compared to overseas. We're seeing better-shooting bigs now that they aren't being forced to just stand under the rim and be large, so that's nice. More face-up attack and handles, too. But in terms of passing, that still notably lags behind, except for the talents who elevate themselves.

But my direct question is if you think high school / AAU doesn't teach GUARDS to pass either. I can get with you that our current system is worse for team ball in general vs Europe at the pro level (no clue how/if/what they have in terms of school teams). But I'm asking directly if this is an issue that we don't teach passing in general not just for big men.

The reason to bring up AD is that he was developed as a guard in the US high school / AAU system.

[tsherkin]

But my direct question is if you think high school / AAU doesn't teach GUARDS to pass either.

I don't think they teach much at all, to be honest. It's not a quality developmental system, which has been and remains a major point of contention. It's a showcase more than it is a development ground. Now, a lot of that isn't on the coaches, to be fair, because the players just do what they want and talent outs. But we've been talking about this for decades.

Inherently, the school environment (particularly as a showcase for college/the NBA) is going to be lower-quality for development than an actual professional league.

[dhsilv2]

But my direct question is if you think high school / AAU doesn't teach GUARDS to pass either.

I don't think they teach much at all, to be honest. It's not a quality developmental system, which has been and remains a major point of contention. It's a showcase more than it is a development ground. Now, a lot of that isn't on the coaches, to be fair, because the players just do what they want and talent outs. But we've been talking about this for decades.

Inherently, the school environment (particularly as a showcase for college/the NBA) is going to be lower-quality for development than an actual professional league.

fair enough. I just wanted it clear you think this is a problem in basketball development, not just big men.

[tsherkin]

fair enough. I just wanted it clear you think this is a problem in basketball development, not just big men.

Oh, absolutely. We were just focused on bigs, so I didn't see any sense in broadening out.