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

[dhsilv2]

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.

Well there's a school of thought we've lost it with big men only and those who think AAU is just bad in totality. I just wanted clarity which camp you were in.

[tsherkin]

Well there's a school of thought we've lost it with big men only and those who think AAU is just bad in totality. I just wanted clarity which camp you were in.

I think that the AAU is basically just a waste of time overall, though there are parts which have improved some. It's a showcase, not legitimate development to any meaningful extent. I don't think it's just bigs. I think that likely extends from complaints over American bigs not developing once HS-to-NBA became more commonplace, but even then, I think it applied to guards and wings well enough. You could see it in shooting as well. The book has been that European bigs have been better shooters, more skilled offensive players and better with team-orientation for at least a quarter century. Now, there's varying truth to that, but as a trend? It makes sense. American bigs were selected primarily for athleticism and size for a good long while, though ultimately the trend of bigs with skills caught on in the US eventually.

But we see all kinds of guards who are quite happy to dribble dozens of times without purpose, and in the mid-2010s, something like Nash's continuity dribble was a revelation and we were still marveling at his maestro conduction of the pick-and-roll (and same same with Stockton), right? We're seeing improvement in that now when guys hit more advanced NBA offenses than what they saw in HS... but that's also been improving. Still, it's a lot of individual- and team-focused stuff.

That said, obviously, it's at least in part due to time and physical development, and average level of competition. You're going to develop more with proper conditioning, better competition and more immersion, as you find in a pro league. And you'll get humbled when you go to a place where your athletic gifts don't immediately make you the best player on the court, too. That happens when these guys get to the league to some extent, but a little earlier wouldn't hurt.

[dhsilv2]

Well there's a school of thought we've lost it with big men only and those who think AAU is just bad in totality. I just wanted clarity which camp you were in.

I think that the AAU is basically just a waste of time overall, though there are parts which have improved some. It's a showcase, not legitimate development to any meaningful extent. I don't think it's just bigs. I think that likely extends from complaints over American bigs not developing once HS-to-NBA became more commonplace, but even then, I think it applied to guards and wings well enough. You could see it in shooting as well. The book has been that European bigs have been better shooters, more skilled offensive players and better with team-orientation for at least a quarter century. Now, there's varying truth to that, but as a trend? It makes sense. American bigs were selected primarily for athleticism and size for a good long while, though ultimately the trend of bigs with skills caught on in the US eventually.

But we see all kinds of guards who are quite happy to dribble dozens of times without purpose, and in the mid-2010s, something like Nash's continuity dribble was a revelation and we were still marveling at his maestro conduction of the pick-and-roll (and same same with Stockton), right? We're seeing improvement in that now when guys hit more advanced NBA offenses than what they saw in HS... but that's also been improving. Still, it's a lot of individual- and team-focused stuff.

That said, obviously, it's at least in part due to time and physical development, and average level of competition. You're going to develop more with proper conditioning, better competition and more immersion, as you find in a pro league. And you'll get humbled when you go to a place where your athletic gifts don't immediately make you the best player on the court, too. That happens when these guys get to the league to some extent, but a little earlier wouldn't hurt.

I think the argument that the US system doesn't work as well as it USED to is a bit weak. Now if we want to argue that europe's system is better...I'm not against that. But we should also note that Europe's population is like 750 million vs the US's of 300 and of the tallest countries in the world..most would fall into that group. so I'm not so sure that I'm sold that the US system is that bad vs. Maybe an equally logical stance that there are more big men to teach over there and the population and gene pool is pretty good for finding passing big men.

I'd guess it's a combination of a lot of factors vs being just one obvious one.

[tsherkin]

I think the argument that the US system doesn't work as well as it USED to is a bit weak.

I'm not sure I'm clear why you extracted that from what I said. In earlier eras, guys were going to college more, so they had more time, different pecking orders and more development. It's been 30+ years since that was any kind of relevant.

I'd guess it's a combination of a lot of factors vs being just one obvious one.

I'm very much in this camp. There's style of play to consider. There's the value of athleticism. There's the age at which guys are hitting the NBA from the States versus from Europe in some cases to consider. It's not singular, I'd certainly agree to that.

The AAU is trash, but that's not the only problem.

[70sFan]

RealGM poster Dipper 13 stat tracked nearly 500+ possessions of Bill Russell from available footage back in 2013. This is a small sample of games but it's cool to look at.



He also did 500+ possessions for Wilt as well:

I haven't finished Russell's tracking yet, but I have much more footage to work with than the great Dipper, so I hope to publish something about Bill in the future.

That's awesome. What's your assessment of Bill's finishing at the rim? I feel like his freakish combination of size, athleticism, and soft yet very strong hands would make him a serious problem in today's NBA. Just too many avenues to get to the rim for a guy like that.

My shooting data for Russell is incomplete yet (I have gathered a lot of new Russell footage since the last time I tracked his games), but based on what I have, he seemed to be a very solid inside finisher. My only concern with him is that I don't love his finishing touch, you can find some examples of him missing shots he should have made because of that. It's not something very significant though and with modern specialization, spacing and strategies he'd be significantly more efficient.

[CobraCommander]

This play reminds me more of Joakim Noah. There was a play he made in the 09 playoffs against Boston where he stole the rock from Pierce, went coast to coast and just dunked on him for the and1.

https://youtu.be/uMTcdlNu4bE
Perhaps Draymond isn’t the right comparison, it’s Joakim Noah that’s more accurate? Insane motor/competitiveness, along with the defensive versatility. Unfortunately, Russell’s offensive ability is limited similar to Noah. He likely would have Noah’s career but less injury prone thus it would still make him one of the best competitors ever.

The people acting like what Russell did on that video is some incredible feat worry me. That jump is what any above average athletic big in today's game can do. Derrick Lively could do that too.

Dereck Lively is a pretty sick athlete who's also 7'1" and with a 7'7" wingspan.

I won't try to talk you into finding a video impressive.

This is a funny thread...man 6’10” gracefully jumps over a human while dribbling a ball running full speed and lays the ball in while factoring in that someone may try to stop him...and someone gives lively (another freak of nature) as another person that could do it...


8 billion people on earth maybe 4 billion when Bill did it...of those 12 billion maybe 200 could do that and it’s no big deal lol.....200 of 12 billion lol - Yeah you are not impressed lol


You need to see someone dunk from the 3 point line and get fouled for the 4 point play to be impressed huh?

But it wouldn’t be impressive if he missed the free throw

[CobraCommander]

Well there's a school of thought we've lost it with big men only and those who think AAU is just bad in totality. I just wanted clarity which camp you were in.

I think that the AAU is basically just a waste of time overall, though there are parts which have improved some. It's a showcase, not legitimate development to any meaningful extent. I don't think it's just bigs. I think that likely extends from complaints over American bigs not developing once HS-to-NBA became more commonplace, but even then, I think it applied to guards and wings well enough. You could see it in shooting as well. The book has been that European bigs have been better shooters, more skilled offensive players and better with team-orientation for at least a quarter century. Now, there's varying truth to that, but as a trend? It makes sense. American bigs were selected primarily for athleticism and size for a good long while, though ultimately the trend of bigs with skills caught on in the US eventually.

But we see all kinds of guards who are quite happy to dribble dozens of times without purpose, and in the mid-2010s, something like Nash's continuity dribble was a revelation and we were still marveling at his maestro conduction of the pick-and-roll (and same same with Stockton), right? We're seeing improvement in that now when guys hit more advanced NBA offenses than what they saw in HS... but that's also been improving. Still, it's a lot of individual- and team-focused stuff.

That said, obviously, it's at least in part due to time and physical development, and average level of competition. You're going to develop more with proper conditioning, better competition and more immersion, as you find in a pro league. And you'll get humbled when you go to a place where your athletic gifts don't immediately make you the best player on the court, too. That happens when these guys get to the league to some extent, but a little earlier wouldn't hurt.

I think the argument that the US system doesn't work as well as it USED to is a bit weak. Now if we want to argue that europe's system is better...I'm not against that. But we should also note that Europe's population is like 750 million vs the US's of 300 and of the tallest countries in the world..most would fall into that group. so I'm not so sure that I'm sold that the US system is that bad vs. Maybe an equally logical stance that there are more big men to teach over there and the population and gene pool is pretty good for finding passing big men.

I'd guess it's a combination of a lot of factors vs being just one obvious one.

As someone who had family and friends that went through Top AAU in DMV, 7 cities, AtL and Seattle area over decades, I can tell you the AAU system doesn’t work ...-period. It doesn’t develop players at all. At one point it did,..but then it became a pure showcase and now even your highschool winning % doesn’t count as much as AAU and select camps where you play other top talent. Example...ja and Zion played AAU together but because they focused on Zion ja wasnt even scouted ! Wtf how...

Because Zion played Iso dunks and and1 mix tape and ja did too but Zion was the showcase.

You can see it in guys like Mikey Williams and Emoni Bates...these were AAU gods and they can barely play fundamentally sound ball.

I have seen these guys play in person and it was amazing and fun but in hindsight they never ran a set...because they didn’t know their teammates and they had a celebrity coach lol

Or were at a camp where the goal was “score” - Russell could play with or without the ball - our guys can’t - AAU has ruined American ball...just my opinion

[One_and_Done]

The people acting like what Russell did on that video is some incredible feat worry me. That jump is what any above average athletic big in today's game can do. Derrick Lively could do that too.

Dereck Lively is a pretty sick athlete who's also 7'1" and with a 7'7" wingspan.

I won't try to talk you into finding a video impressive.

This is a funny thread...man 6’10” gracefully jumps over a human while dribbling a ball running full speed and lays the ball in while factoring in that someone may try to stop him...and someone gives lively (another freak of nature) as another person that could do it...


8 billion people on earth maybe 4 billion when Bill did it...of those 12 billion maybe 200 could do that and it’s no big deal lol.....200 of 12 billion lol - Yeah you are not impressed lol


You need to see someone dunk from the 3 point line and get fouled for the 4 point play to be impressed huh?

But it wouldn’t be impressive if he missed the free throw

Is Lively remotely close to being a top 10 player? No? Then what is the clip supposed to show?

[ConSarnit]

My position is as always.

If you transport bill russell as a 6 month baby and he was born 20 years ago, he would be just as good, if not even much better. He would train himself to today's game and have all the benefits of things like improved FT shooting trainers and regimen's.

If you took 26 year old bill russell and teleported him into today's game, he maybe would not be as good because he never developed those skills necessary for today's game, but you make good points that he still would be.

I mean the same but the reverse is true for sending current players to the past. if you sent them as 6 month old baby and transported them to 1934, they would not be as good as they are today. Michael Jordan might not be the goat if you took him as a 6 month old baby and he was born in 1934.

Haven’t had a chance to look through this entire thread but why is it assumed he’d learn to be a better free throw shooter? The league average during his time was 73%. It’s not like the league didn’t know how to shoot free throws. He was 17% below the league average. Are we going to look back on Javale McGee’s career 40 years from now and say “he could have been a good ft shooter if he had 2064’s training”? No. There are always guys who are going to suck at shooting. A bunch of guys shot 80%+ from the line during Russell’s era, it wasn’t some skill that wasn’t unlocked until the 70’s.

[LoveTheNBA23]

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.

Bingo! This is the perfect comparison. In his prime, that's a top 15 player in today's league and possibly top 12.

[tsherkin]

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.

Bingo! This is the perfect comparison. In his prime, that's a top 15 player in today's league and possibly top 12.

I feel like the "taller" part starts to get in the way of Draymond, because you're not likely to run Russ out on perimeter scorers. He was a good athlete, but at some point, height does become a problem out in space when an athletic dude with a live dribble is coming at you. 4 inches of height does make some difference, and wingspan only covers for that so much. Draymond's deal in his day was his playmaking, which feels at a higher level than what we saw from Russ, and his utility as a defender in a manner quite different from how Russ would be best deployed.

I guess I see the "low-volume offense, defensive specialist who can pass" angle to some extent, but Draymond still doesn't feel apt.

[FrodoBaggins]

My position is as always.

If you transport bill russell as a 6 month baby and he was born 20 years ago, he would be just as good, if not even much better. He would train himself to today's game and have all the benefits of things like improved FT shooting trainers and regimen's.

If you took 26 year old bill russell and teleported him into today's game, he maybe would not be as good because he never developed those skills necessary for today's game, but you make good points that he still would be.

I mean the same but the reverse is true for sending current players to the past. if you sent them as 6 month old baby and transported them to 1934, they would not be as good as they are today. Michael Jordan might not be the goat if you took him as a 6 month old baby and he was born in 1934.

Haven’t had a chance to look through this entire thread but why is it assumed he’d learn to be a better free throw shooter? The league average during his time was 73%. It’s not like the league didn’t know how to shoot free throws. He was 17% below the league average. Are we going to look back on Javale McGee’s career 40 years from now and say “he could have been a good ft shooter if he had 2064’s training”? No. There are always guys who are going to suck at shooting. A bunch of guys shot 80%+ from the line during Russell’s era, it wasn’t some skill that wasn’t unlocked until the 70’s.

Improvements in equipment and playing conditions. Things like an eight-panel ball with improved grip, standardized rims, backboards, flooring, temperature-controlled arenas, etc. There's wiggle room for a small improvement in shooting. Say, 3% or so. Adjusting for league average FT% puts him around 60%.

[tsherkin]

Improvements in equipment and playing conditions. Things like an eight-panel ball with improved grip, standardized rims, backboards, flooring, temperature-controlled arenas, etc. There's wiggle room for a small improvement in shooting. Say, 3% or so. Adjusting for league average FT% puts him around 60%.

60% isn't really out of the question. I don't personally think there would be much change at all, since we have seen many guys simply struggle to hit FTs through the ages, but a small margin of improvement isn't impossible by any stretch. League FT shooting isn't THAT much different compared to Russ' career, though, and the best FT shooters are fairly similar. Larry Siegried was an 85.4% FT shooter from 64-72 who led the league twice at 88.1% and 86.4%, shooting 86% or better in 4 seasons. Adrian Smith led the league in 67 at 90.3% on over 4 attempts per game. Oscar Robertson shot over 87% twice, both times on over 10 FTA/g. He also shot 85% or better 2 other times, and led the league twice. Jerry West had seasons of 86 and 87% on 12.4 and 10.4 FTA/g. Larry Costello led the league twice, shot 86% or better 5 times and had a 90.2% season. Dolph Schayes played from 50-64 and led the league 3 times, shot 90% or better twice, shot 89% two other times and shot 85% or better 4 other times beyond that.

Guys could shoot FTs in the day. It hasn't grown that much easier or better trained since then.

[Black Jack]

Russell would be a more dominant Adebayo. Similar size. But Russell was ferocious going after the ball.

I was literally just thinking how he'd be like a mix of Bam Adebayo and Dennis Rodman. Dominant defensively, can switch everything, guard 1 through 5, rim protect, jump passing lanes, and run the floor in transition. Then on offense be basically Bam with a hook shot.

Which is not a top 10 player today.

A Rodman level athlete with center size that can guard 1-5, run the court with guards, and has a solid touch inside, a super clutch winner, super intelligent, GOAT level leadership, and GOAT defensive QB presence is absolutely a top 10 player today. Man please

[tsherkin]

A Rodman level athlete with center size that can guard 1-5,

Stop right there.

Russell wouldn't be guarding 1s. He could show during a PnR, for sure, but he wouldn't be checking perimeter guys on the regular or for extended possessions, that's ludicrous.

run the court with guards, and has a solid touch inside, a super clutch winner, super intelligent, GOAT level leadership, and GOAT defensive QB presence is absolutely a top 10 player today. Man please

There's a lot of talent today. Russ is a much more limited offensive player than many of the guys in the league right now. His style of defense isn't largely-unseen in today's game as it had been in his own day. The nature of his defense wouldn't be as high-impact as in an era where no one had really seen someone like that before. He'd still be elite, he'd still be arguably the best defender in the league on a perennial basis... but we've got guys like that in the league. And we've got impact players who are considerably better on O, so that makes a difference too.

It isn't disrespectful to Russ to note that five and a half decades later, he wouldn't necessarily be top 10 in the larger league with better talent depth.

[One_and_Done]

I was literally just thinking how he'd be like a mix of Bam Adebayo and Dennis Rodman. Dominant defensively, can switch everything, guard 1 through 5, rim protect, jump passing lanes, and run the floor in transition. Then on offense be basically Bam with a hook shot.

Which is not a top 10 player today.

A Rodman level athlete with center size that can guard 1-5, run the court with guards, and has a solid touch inside, a super clutch winner, super intelligent, GOAT level leadership, and GOAT defensive QB presence is absolutely a top 10 player today. Man please

A player who is almost a pure rim roller on O wouldn't be top 10 today. Russell didn't have good touch on O, and wouldn't be guarding 1-5 today. His size is mutually exclusive with playing how Rodman did, not that Rodman was a lock down perimeter guy either. Nor does being a defensive QB in the 60s compare to what you need in today's game. The level of defensive awareness is on a completely different level. We discussed all this in the thread already.

[SNPA]

A Rodman level athlete with center size that can guard 1-5,

Stop right there.

Russell wouldn't be guarding 1s. He could show during a PnR, for sure, but he wouldn't be checking perimeter guys on the regular or for extended possessions, that's ludicrous.

run the court with guards, and has a solid touch inside, a super clutch winner, super intelligent, GOAT level leadership, and GOAT defensive QB presence is absolutely a top 10 player today. Man please

There's a lot of talent today. Russ is a much more limited offensive player than many of the guys in the league right now. His style of defense isn't largely-unseen in today's game as it had been in his own day. The nature of his defense wouldn't be as high-impact as in an era where no one had really seen someone like that before. He'd still be elite, he'd still be arguably the best defender in the league on a perennial basis... but we've got guys like that in the league. And we've got impact players who are considerably better on O, so that makes a difference too.

It isn't disrespectful to Russ to note that five and a half decades later, he wouldn't necessarily be top 10 in the larger league with better talent depth.

I don’t mind this argument if it is consistent. Flip it, will you be saying the same about Curry and his threes eventually?

[tsherkin]

I don’t mind this argument if it is consistent. Flip it, will you be saying the same about Curry and his threes eventually?

We are ALREADY seeing it.

His relative scoring efficiency isn't punching as hard as it did in 2015 and such because the league has adapted and baseline efficiency has risen considerably the past couple of seasons. Also, people often forget how much play Golden State got out of their defense. 14-22, they were a -4 defense or better 4 times, and in 3 of their 4 titles (the exception being 2018).

EDIT to Add: We are seeing the same with Klay and others. League average TS% has risen to 58%. It's been 56%+ since 2019. In 2014 as the Warriors really started to get going, it was 54.1%, which is around where it's been since the 80s, barring 98-05. That 4% shift is pretty big for changing the impact of scoring efficiency in your volume guys. Now, some people have been able to ride the wave and all that, but Curry's gone from +6.9% in 2014 to +3.6%, you know?

[FrodoBaggins]

Improvements in equipment and playing conditions. Things like an eight-panel ball with improved grip, standardized rims, backboards, flooring, temperature-controlled arenas, etc. There's wiggle room for a small improvement in shooting. Say, 3% or so. Adjusting for league average FT% puts him around 60%.

60% isn't really out of the question. I don't personally think there would be much change at all, since we have seen many guys simply struggle to hit FTs through the ages, but a small margin of improvement isn't impossible by any stretch. League FT shooting isn't THAT much different compared to Russ' career, though, and the best FT shooters are fairly similar. Larry Siegried was an 85.4% FT shooter from 64-72 who led the league twice at 88.1% and 86.4%, shooting 86% or better in 4 seasons. Adrian Smith led the league in 67 at 90.3% on over 4 attempts per game. Oscar Robertson shot over 87% twice, both times on over 10 FTA/g. He also shot 85% or better 2 other times, and led the league twice. Jerry West had seasons of 86 and 87% on 12.4 and 10.4 FTA/g. Larry Costello led the league twice, shot 86% or better 5 times and had a 90.2% season. Dolph Schayes played from 50-64 and led the league 3 times, shot 90% or better twice, shot 89% two other times and shot 85% or better 4 other times beyond that.

Guys could shoot FTs in the day. It hasn't grown that much easier or better trained since then.

There are no doubt diminishing returns when it comes to free-throw shooting. It's easier for a 57% FT to add 3-4% than it is for those shooting greater percentages. Great free-throw shooters have always existed and they too would benefit from improved circumstances. But that doesn't mean it would look as obvious as improvements for a lesser foul shooter.

At the end of the day, there is absolutely evidence that equipment and playing conditions had a negative effect on play, particularly with regard to shooting and dribbling. Bill Sharman addressed some of these issues in his book. The point about youth coaching isn't relevant to my argument but is included:

Well I just read Bill Sharman's piece in the book "From Set Shot to Slam Dunk", and he identifies 4 key reasons, and briefly touches on a 5th (pg 141-142):

1) THE ARENAS: Many of the buildings they played in were old or poorly maintained, so floors were warped, lighting was bad, roofs were leaky, and flooring was inconsistent (they occasionally played on courts that had recently been rollerskating rinks). Many of the buildings they played in before basketball gained popularity in the 60's & 70's were chiefly used for hockey, so often times the basketball courts were just placed right over top of ice hockey rinks with no insulation, so "suffice to say, with cold, stiff hands and fingers, it certainly didn't help the shooting touch and percentages."

2) THE BALL: Basketballs weren't molded properly until the late-50's, so they were often lopsided and not round, making it tougher to dribble and shoot. Plus there's a note below about how the ball changed for the '70 season that caused shooting efficiencies to instantly improve.

3) TRANSPORTATION: Before consistent transportation from one game to the next by jet airplanes was common (and LONG before private jets), players had long road trips by car, bus, or train, often overnight. Sometimes teams went straight from their long travel to the arenas so the games could start on-time. Obviously this takes a toll on players over a season, making them far less rested for the games, and with less time to practice (like the now common game-day shoot-arounds, which Sharman invented as the Lakers coach in the early-70's).

4) RULES & OFFICIALS: Refs used to allow a lot of pushing, holding, elbowing, hand-checking, etc. This lead to more fights at the time, but it also disrupted shooters (obviously).

5) YOUTH COACHING: Sharman also briefly mentioned "younger players getting better coaching and exposure at a much earlier age", which makes sense. Today most kids are getting better training on how to shoot properly before the age of 10 just by going to a local camp than teens in the 1950's who probably weren't coached at all before making the HS team as a good athlete looking for something to do in the winter, and then you were at the mercy of what was being taught by that one coach (there weren't infinite camps, zillions of coaches at every grade level, AAU coaching, easily accessible books and internet tutorials, etc).

EDIT: It was brought to my attention that there was another major change in the ball, this one made between the '69 and '70 seasons that had an immediate & lasting effect on shooting; this doesn't affect the 50's obviously, but it has affected shooting in the long-term in NBA history. According to this tweet by Thinking Basketball's Ben Taylor, it was pointed out that the ball changed from 4 panels to 8 panels before the 1969-70 season.

The result? The league had a huge jump in FT% (from .714 to .751) and in FG% (from .441 to .460). Both of these increases are the largest 1-year increases in NBA history.

[tsherkin]

There are no doubt diminishing returns when it comes to free-throw shooting. It's easier for a 57% FT to add 3-4% than it is for those shooting greater percentages. Great free-throw shooters have always existed and they too would benefit from improved circumstances. But that doesn't mean it would look as obvious as improvements for a lesser foul shooter.

That said, most guys who are bad don't get a lot better. There are the odd exceptions, like Olajuwon and Karl Malone, but mostly, they hover around the same level, and often tail off later in their careers if they add much weight.

At the end of the day, there is absolutely evidence that equipment and playing conditions had a negative effect on play, particularly with regard to shooting and dribbling.

Yes, but less so with FT shooting. More so with the nature of shot selection, shooting form, assisted percentage, average distance to defender, la la la. That sort of thing. Dribbling, certainly. But you also can't assume massive skill boost just because a player played in a previous era, because some guys don't develop significantly even now. And we've already established that Russell would be more efficient in the absolute. And other threads (I think it was on the PC Board) have largely established that jump shooting actually wasn't that much different on middies and long twos in the earlier years, it's more proportion of shots taken at the rim which has largely changed raw FG%. Until more recently, when we've been seeing rising percentages at the rim as well. About +10% since 2004. But anyway.

Again, it's unlikely that Russell, who didn't evidence great range, nor particularly good skills at the line, would be a lot different in that regard today without sufficiently radical change as to be very unlikely for the sake of this conversation.