Garnett vs Russell

[Tim Lehrbach]

I'm curious about support for the claim that Garnett was anywhere near as impactful a defender as Russell, particularly without reference to statistics we do not have for Russell.

[One_and_Done]

What Russell did was so basic, that I am not comfortable saying he would be a high IQ player in today’s vastly different league. What Duncan did gives me much more assurance, because the league was significantly more sophisticated in Duncan’s era compared to the 60s (especially in the back end).

Why is it you think he couldn't follow contemporary coaching? That he couldn't learn? Why do you think he couldn't do what many players did literally as defense changed in the NBA over the past 20 years? What is it that you think sets 36 year-old Brook Lopez so very far apart from Russell, for example? Or Gobert?

Do you think Bill Russell was stupid?

Nobody is suggesting Russell couldn't play today. I think he'd be fine as a rim rolling 5 at least. The issue is when you infer that because he had high defensive bball IQ for his era, he would have high bball IQ today. There's not enough to base that on, because of how simplistic things were in Russell's era. You didn't need high bball IQ back then, not by today's standards.

[Doctor MJ]

‘Instinct is a lie, told by a fearful body, hoping to be wrong’

When you see a knife coming at you, your instinct is to block or dodge it somehow, in the hope you will survive. But what if the best course of action is to let the knife hit you at a non-vital point, grab the guy, and let your buddy finish him off? Modern D is often like that, where you are asked to make choices that are counter intuitive. Thinking basketball did a good video of it during the Wolves-Denver series last year, breaking down the seemingly irrational choices that players were intentionally making on D to execute the Scheme.

Talking about a guy being “cerebral” is fine, but it is all contextual. What was the context in which he seemed to have a high IQ. Russell’s context was a caveman league, where the coaching was so unsophisticated that Russell could do it while playing at the same time (and we know from his post-playing career that Russell was most definitely not a good coach). Coaches would tell guys to “get out and play hard”, and “pass more”. While that’s a slight exaggeration of how unsophisticated it was, it’s not even much of one. Today’s D requires vastly more of players in terms of both physical exertion and bball IQ.

What Russell did was so basic, that I am not comfortable saying he would be a high IQ player in today’s vastly different league. What Duncan did gives me much more assurance, because the league was significantly more sophisticated in Duncan’s era compared to the 60s (especially in the back end).

Could you tell me what kind of offensive sets teams run in the 1960s and what defensive schemes were the most relevant? Nothing fancy, just basic breakdown.

And I'll ask something similar with a little different focus:

What are the specific mental innovations in the sport do we think would cause players from the past known for mental innovation to fail to measure up with the younger generation?

In general, my only real answer is what I think of with Connie Hawkins:

Because Hawkins really didn't get formal professional training at the normal time due to the scandal, it makes sense that he might struggle learning some of the concepts when he came to the NBA, particularly relating to defensive schemes.

I'm skeptical though that any highly intelligent and highly trained NBA veteran from really any era would struggle to learn concepts from today. I think the reality is that most of the elements of the game got fleshed out before 1950 and most of what we're talking about since then is about refinement of strategy and of skills identified as most effective along with some significant rule changes.

[70sFan]

There's not enough to base that on, because of how simplistic things were in Russell's era. You didn't need high bball IQ back then, not by today's standards.

You keep repeating this without any evidence. Why don't you tell us how the game was played back then from strategic standpoint and which elements of the game weren't available that are common now?

[theonlyclutch]

Russell, even given modern training/nutrition, would not have nearly the ball-handling/initiation/playmaking skills that Draymond has, given the latter trained has reps as a guard/forward which Russell at his size would not be developed to nearly this extent.

Why not? We have plenty of initiating centers now and Russell did plenty of that in his own era. People don't realize that Russell run basic P&Rs as a ball-handler in the 1960s at center position.

And he ran full speed while dribbling on the break.

If you look at video from those days and say Russell (or anyone, for that matter) couldn't dribble like today's players, you're absolutely correct because they called carrying the ball if your hand slipped down the side of the ball. He'd be an excellent ballhandler in today's game.

Just about all the non-Draymond sized bigs who can even classify as great ball handlers/playmakers (Jokic/Sabonis/Sengun/Giannis) spent their developmental years outside the US ecosystem. Now given the hypothetical version of Russell is still raised in the US, he'd doubtless be a NCAA one-and-done (instead of staying 4Y) off physical attributes alone. Neither of which will facilitate development of ball-handling/playmaking skills that would have been considered ancillary to someone of Russell's size.

[70sFan]

Why not? We have plenty of initiating centers now and Russell did plenty of that in his own era. People don't realize that Russell run basic P&Rs as a ball-handler in the 1960s at center position.

And he ran full speed while dribbling on the break.

If you look at video from those days and say Russell (or anyone, for that matter) couldn't dribble like today's players, you're absolutely correct because they called carrying the ball if your hand slipped down the side of the ball. He'd be an excellent ballhandler in today's game.

Just about all the non-Draymond sized bigs who can even classify as great ball handlers/playmakers (Jokic/Sabonis/Sengun/Giannis) spent their developmental years outside the US ecosystem. Now given the hypothetical version of Russell is still raised in the US, he'd doubtless be a NCAA one-and-done (instead of staying 4Y) off physical attributes alone. Neither of which will facilitate development of ball-handling/playmaking skills that would have been considered ancillary to someone of Russell's size.

That's very rudimentary way of thinking. GOAT-level players always develop their games way beyond the normal scope.

[tsherkin]

Nobody is suggesting Russell couldn't play today. I think he'd be fine as a rim rolling 5 at least. The issue is when you infer that because he had high defensive bball IQ for his era, he would have high bball IQ today. There's not enough to base that on, because of how simplistic things were in Russell's era. You didn't need high bball IQ back then, not by today's standards.

You still haven't addressed the basics of his reaction speed, timing and his understanding of how to use his physical tools to move in space. Those are timeless. So the question comes down to whether you think he is too stupid to pay attention to coaching at today's level or not, like I keep asking you. Stop dodging the question and answer it.

[One_and_Done]

I debated whether to delve further into this, but I’ll try one last time.

Below is a video of the D the Wolves used against the Nuggets in last years playoffs. You can see from the video the scheme is quite complex and counter-intuitive. Towns is often turning his back on a guy driving right to the basket in favour of sticking with Jokic. Guys are switching and hedging and stunting all the time. You need to be aware of where all 5 guys are on the court at any given time, and exactly what action will lead to a corresponding counter-action. It’s not easy to make these split-second decisions, and sometimes you will screw up and get burnt.
https://youtu.be/teH9jzsEy98?si=1_0zZm5i5Tcohqzx

What is important to remember is that the coverage you have to deploy against teams will vary greatly; so the rotations and schemes you have to be aware of against the Nuggets will be completely different compared to say the Heat or Memphis or the Rockets or Kings, each of whom deploy quite different schemes. The defence you needed against the old Warriors death line-up is completely different to what the Wolves are deploying here.

Now below I’ve linked to Russell’s last game, when he was assumedly at the height of his NBA IQ. As expected, it looks like a different sport. Russell does pretty much the same thing every single time on D; he plods over to the post and stands there, with very little movement. It’s not just Russell, almost nobody on either team is moving much on D. I don’t pretend to know the names of the actions each team is running like we do today, with the Spain pick and roll, etc, but I don’t need to know the name of an action to see how simplistic it is. The ball is usually just lobbed into the post, and the guy it’s lobbed to tries to shoot it, or passes it back out to another guy who tries to get a favourable match up or opening to shoot. Through all this, Russell barely moves.
https://youtu.be/Lnu5vMfPtbw?si=QtxuAXhJK0krVgPj

It just did not require a particularly high level of bball IQ to do what Russell did, compared to what guys today need to do on D. Some have suggested because Russell was smart by his own era, that would translate today. Why would it? The skills Russell needs to be “high IQ” on D in his day were, what, not biting on fakes, boxing out, knowing how to foul/not-foul, and that’s mostly it. Why do those skills lend themselves to memorising dozens of potential actions, recognising them, and being able to make the split second decision that let’s you respond correctly. None of what Russell is doing involves the same skills set at all. Maybe he could have learned to adapt, but that’s similar to saying maybe he could have learned to shoot. I only give people credit for what they actually could do, otherwise we’re entering into the realm of players who only exist in our imagination, and that’s just too subjective. A lot of guys today go through considerably more training than Russell ever did, and they still can’t execute well on modern D. It seems far from assured that Russell could, just because he had mastered the simplistic skills of the 60s.

I feel comfortable saying Russell could play today, but I don't feel it's reasonable to say he would have high bball IQ today, given how different the game is.

[70sFan]

Now below I’ve linked to Russell’s last game, when he was assumedly at the height of his NBA IQ. As expected, it looks like a different sport. Russell does pretty much the same thing every single time on D; he plods over to the post and stands there, with very little movement. It’s not just Russell, almost nobody on either team is moving much on D. I don’t pretend to know the names of the actions each team is running like we do today, with the Spain pick and roll, etc, but I don’t need to know the name of an action to see how simplistic it is. The ball is usually just lobbed into the post, and the guy it’s lobbed to tries to shoot it, or passes it back out to another guy who tries to get a favourable match up or opening to shoot. Through all this, Russell barely moves.
https://youtu.be/Lnu5vMfPtbw?si=QtxuAXhJK0krVgPj

So, I want to focus on the bolded part and look at that a little closer:

0:00 - quick transition layup after tip-off, NO POSTUP
0:17 - Celtics run a high post action, Russell is above FT line, Bryant and Jones run stagger screen and Jones gets hand-off and makes heavily contested jumper by Wilt, who switched on him, NO POSTUP
0:30 - Lakers run post up isolation for Wilt, West tries to cut, but Jones shuts down it well with Havlicek help, Wilt passess away to Baylor, who changes the side and the possession ends with West pull-up shot, POSTUP
0:58 - Lakers tries to run West-Wilt P&R, but West is immediately doubled so he passes outside, the Lakers change the side and Russell switches onto Hawkins inside, shutting down the advantage and contesting his hook attempt, Wilt is fouled on the board NO POSTUP
1:40 - Bryant attacks Lakers defense quickly and blows by Egan, who fouls him, NO POSTUP
2:10 - Celtics run a soft trap on defense against West, so he gives the ball to Egan, who passes it to Baylor for an empty side faceup isolation, Baylor scores on a nice drive, NO POSTUP
2:18 - Russell outruns Wilt on the fastbreak and scores, NO POSTUP
2:32 - Lakers run Wilt postup isolation, he finds cutting West, Russell contests West's layup but the foul is called, POSTUP
3:20 - Celtics run the same split action they did in the first offensive possession, with Russell above FT line, this time though Lakers switch it before it happens, so Howell joins as the third man and gets the ball forcing another switch and he makes pull-up jumpshot on a mismatch, NO POSTUP
3:35 - Lakers run Wilt postup isolation, Wilt scores finger roll to the middle, Russell is in foul trouble, POSTUP
3:46 - Egan sleeps on defense and Bryant makes him pay for it, he makes open jumpshot from outside, NO POSTUP
4:28 - Celtics run Russell post up, Russell misses turnaround jumpshot, POSTUP
4:37 - West pushes the ball in transition, but gets doubled, so he passes off to unguarded Baylor, who misses jumpshot on a mismatch, NO POSTUP
4:52 - Siegfried uses running Russell as a screen in early offense and takes jumpshot, but West contests it well and forces a miss, NO POSTUP
5:02 - Baylor plays P&R with Hawkins, but gives ball to West who plays isolation and makes fadeaway before double comes, NO POSTUP
5:21 - Celtics runs Russell's post up and then run split action, but Lakers switch it, so Bryant decides to play isolation and misses jumpshot, POSTUP
5:44 - West plays side isolation and backs down Siegfried, drawing a foul - I guess you can call it post up isolation, POSTUP
6:38 - Havlicek plays high P&R with Russell, he's doubled by West so he hands off the ball to Siegfried, but West recovers and blocks him from behind, NO POSTUP
6:50 - Lakers push the ball, Erickson gets screen from Hawkins but doesn't use it because Russell lurks inside, he hands it off to West and screens one defender, West takes advantage and makes pull-up jumpshot, NO POSTUP
7:23 - Nelson runs close P&R with Russell and is fouled by Baylor on a drive, NO POSTUP
8:03 - West runs quick isolation and misses pull-up jumpshot out of double, Lakers rebounds and Hawkins drives on Russell to get blocked, Wilt rebounds and gets fouled NO POSTUP
8:47 - Celtics gives Nelson the ball in the high post, but he runs P&R with Russell again, he misses jumpshot this time, Russell rebounds and Lakers foul, NO POSTUP
9:30 - Lakers run post split action, Wilt passes the ball to West on that play, catching Jones sleepy and West punishes him for that, POSTUP
10:56 - Celtics fakes high post split action and transitions it to high P&R, Bryant misses long jumpshot, NO POSTUP
11:10 - Celtics play zone on West, so Jerry moves the ball to the other side and Baylor makes jumpshot on collapsed defense, NO POSTUP
11:20 - Celtics run quick P&R on early offense and Havlicek makes jumpshot, NO POSTUP
11:35 - Lakers want to set up Wilt's post up, but West sees off-ball double on him, so he makes contested pull-up jumpshot, NO POSTUP
11:48 - Celtics run two hand-offs at the top, which transitions into Havlicek-Nelson P&R, Havlicek picks up dribble so they start again and Howell plays another hand-off with Bryant, forcing switch, Havlicek cuts to the FT line and misses jumpshot, NO POSTUP - Wilt's injury play
12:03 - Baylor misses jumpshot in transition, NO POSTUP
12:16 - Havlicek attacks early, doesn't get advantage so he plays P&R with Russell and misses jumpshot, NO POSTUP
13:20 - West dribbles the ball and turns away from double to draw a foul, NO POSTUP

With Wilt on the court:

Lakers: 16 possessions, 5 post up possessions
Celtics: 15 possessions, 2 post up possessions

I won't go further, I think my point is quite clear. Now, at this point I start wondering - have you even watched a single minute of the game you provided? Well, there are three options:

1. You didn't and you are dishonest.
2. You did and you hoped nobody would bother to check your honesty.
3. You did and you don't understand what you watch.

Pick your opiton.

[One_and_Done]

You're trying to distract from the main point; Russell just does the same thing pretty much every possession on D. It's not sophisticated, and it can't compare to today's game

I don't agree with your characterisation of all the above plays (e.g. you describe some plays as being fed into the high post, and then declare 'No post up'), but I'm not going to get into a debate about what is and isn't a post related possession on each play, because it's irrelevant. The point that is relevant is that Russell is doing the same thing on almost every possession on D and barely moves. It's a shame you used so much time breaking down plays and somehow missed that.

[70sFan]

You're trying to distract from the main point; Russell just does the same thing pretty much every possession on D. It's not sophisticated, and it can't compare to today's game

I don't agree with your characterisation of all the above plays (e.g. you describe some plays as being fed into the high post, and then declare 'No post up'), but I'm not going to get into a debate about what is and isn't a post related possession on each play, because it's irrelevant. The point that is relevant is that Russell is doing the same thing on almost every possession on D and barely moves. It's a shame you used so much time breaking down plays and somehow missed that.

Since when catching the ball above the FT line is called a post up possession? Find me one definition that describes such things that way.

One thing we can agree with - it's a shame I used so much time on you.

[One_and_Done]

It's a shame you didn't spend all that time counting possessions to actually log what Russell is doing. To my eyes he almost always runs into the post and just stands there mostly, barely moving. Even Javale McGee or Olowokandi could execute something so simple.

[70sFan]

It's a shame you didn't spend all that time counting possessions to actually log what Russell is doing. To my eyes he almost always runs into the post and just stands there mostly, barely moving. Even Javale McGee or Olowokandi could execute something so simple.

Yeah, he defended Wilt who was a post player, so he mostly stayed with him. You are free to continue my work when Wilt got hurt and Mel Counts replaced him. You can also track Russell's game against Holzman Knicks that played significantly different style than the Lakers.

Will you do that?

Also, I can provide you Duncan games against Shaq when he basically always stayed in the post and didn't do anything Ben described in the video you posted. Would that mean that McGee would do the same? Or that Duncan's defense wouldn't translate to modern era?

[One_and_Done]

We saw Duncan play in a much more sophisticated defensive era, especially later in his career, and he thrived. Russell played in the era of caveman ball.

Russell could play today, but it's too speculative to say he'd be a high bball IQ player today given how little he had to do in his own era

[70sFan]

We saw Duncan play in a much more sophisticated defensive era, especially later in his career, and he thrived. Russell played in the era of caveman ball.

Russell could play today, but it's too speculative to say he'd be a high bball IQ player today given how little he had to do in his own era

Duncan retired in 2016, 2016 offenses are not even remotely close to 2025 offenses.

[One_and_Done]

Much closer than 60s offenses.

[70sFan]

Much closer than 60s offenses.

In terms of actual defensive schemes and variety of faced plays? That's actually arguable.

[theonlyclutch]

Much closer than 60s offenses.

In terms of actual defensive schemes and variety of faced plays? That's actually arguable.

Duncan play overlapped with GSW's first championship team (an offensive system still run today with similar core personnel) and stuff like the SSOL Suns. That is clearly closer to 2025 than 60s ball.

[70sFan]

Much closer than 60s offenses.

In terms of actual defensive schemes and variety of faced plays? That's actually arguable.

Duncan play overlapped with GSW's first championship team (an offensive system still run today with similar core personnel) and stuff like the SSOL Suns. That is clearly closer to 2025 than 60s ball.

SSOL is an outlier among outliers and GSW won first title when Duncan was 39.

Of course, my point isn't that Duncan wouldn't thrive today. It remains true that Duncan started and peaked in an era that was significantly more post-oriented and less dynamic than 2020s and you can argue it was more static than 1960s as well. When you watch Duncan defending P&Rs in the early 2000s, it often looks silly how bad he looks to modern eye.

Somehow, he adjusted though and that's the point - great players with physical tools and right mind always adapt to new environments. Basketball is complex now, but it's not so complex that someone with Russell's talent would struggle to make a significant impact on modern game.

[One_and_Done]

We know Duncan could adjust because he actually did so. We have no evidence of Russell playing anything resembling modern defence, and to assert with confidence that he would be a genius on D today, based on his ability to run back in a straight line and stand stationary next to the rim for a whole possession, is pretty absurd.

The skill Russell showed has little to no commonality with the skills I described a modern defender needing. What about standing in a fixed spot in the post suggests you'd also be great at knowing dozens of actions and counters, follow the rapid rotation of all 5 opposing players, and be able to make the right reads in a split second. The skillsets involved are totally different.