Garnett vs Russell

[f4p]

It's one thing to say Russell would be a great rim roller today, but it's a stretch to suggest he'd be maybe the GOAT rim-roller of all-time, which is what he'd have to be to compare to Gobert in that regard, but his TS% of 471 says he clearly isn't.

TS% doesn't say he's not a great rim roller,

It may not say that, but I do think it says he was so offensively limited that after putting him 4th in the Top 100, I think I've convinced myself he has to be behind Hakeem/Shaq/Duncan because his skillset would not allow him to surpass them (barely, maybe) in basically any era other than his own and they would almost definitely surpass him in later eras.

Like it's just astounding he finished his career with a negative TS Add. He was one of 2 ridiculous physical forces in his time. The other finished with the all time TS Add record. Russell was negative. While being a low volume shooter. Low volume athletic freaks either end up like gobert with outsized efficiency or they are low efficiency because their touch with the ball is like Ben Wallace.

Like he either had to play so suboptimally and take such terrible shots that it negated all of the easy dunks and layins he got in transition, moving without the ball, putbacks or he didn't play suboptimally and just couldn't really finish all of the easy shots he was getting. The suboptimal play would actually be better for era translation purposes because it could be fixed but nothing about Russell suggest he didn't understand how to play. Throw in Boston's generally poor offenses that sometimes were last in the league and Russell's 56 FT% and there's just nothing I can wrap my head around to suggest he could really put together enough of an offensive game to really anchor a team in a league where 99% of the value wasn't coming from stopping shots close to the rim.

[70sFan]

It may not say that, but I do think it says he was so offensively limited that after putting him 4th in the Top 100, I think I've convinced myself he has to be behind Hakeem/Shaq/Duncan because his skillset would not allow him to surpass them (barely, maybe) in basically any era other than his own and they would almost definitely surpass him in later eras.

I can understand that with Hakeem and Duncan, but I think in Shaq's case it showcase the offensive bias a lot of people have. Like, Shaq wouldn't touch Russell defensively in any era and he has a lot of question marks regarding his offense both in the early eras (offensive fouls etc) and later eras (FT shooting, no shot). Shaq wasn't a good defender and his defense was often very problematic, more so than Russell's offense I'd say.

Like it's just astounding he finished his career with a negative TS Add. He was one of 2 ridiculous physical forces in his time. The other finished with the all time TS Add record. Russell was negative. While being a low volume shooter.

Yeah, but to be fair he finished with 99 TS+, so it's not like he was much below average. Someone like Hakeem finished his RS at 103, which is considerably better, but not massively better and Hakeem is a very good scorer. Granted, volume isn't comparable but still.

Low volume athletic freaks either end up like gobert with outsized efficiency or they are low efficiency because their touch with the ball is like Ben Wallace.

I don't think it's nearly as easy and I don't think Russell's touch is like Ben's, but I don't have a definitive answer for that yet. I need more tracking data to draw conclusion.

Like he either had to play so suboptimally and take such terrible shots that it negated all of the easy dunks and layins he got in transition, moving without the ball, putbacks or he didn't play suboptimally and just couldn't really finish all of the easy shots he was getting. The suboptimal play would actually be better for era translation purposes because it could be fixed but nothing about Russell suggest he didn't understand how to play.

Well, after Cousy retirement Russell played in the high post as a hub and he wasn't a good shooter, so his efficiency got clearly worse (102 TS+ in 1958-63 vs 96 TS+ in 1964-69). I think it's mostly the former option.

Throw in Boston's generally poor offenses that sometimes were last in the league and Russell's 56 FT% and there's just nothing I can wrap my head around to suggest he could really put together enough of an offensive game to really anchor a team in a league where 99% of the value wasn't coming from stopping shots close to the rim.

Russell didn't play in such era though, 1960s basketball was significantly more varied than that.

[Doctor MJ]

This idea that Russell is a Mount Rushmore lock, GOAT candidate, and tier-of-his-own savant seems to have been uncritically accepted by a lot of people on here after Backpicks popularized it.

Guy with a 2017 start date dismisses a board that was talking like this in the 2000s saying they're just copying a blog that started in 2010 after the blogger joined the board and learned a lot about history from participating in conversation here.

You need to stop looking to dismiss others as not thinking things through and start putting in due diligence to learn all you can.

[One_and_Done]

Regardless of the reason, Russell is being grossly overrated given the limitations that most people voting recognise he had. He belongs nowhere is a list of the top 10 basketball players of all-time.

[Doctor MJ]

A note on the interesting Gobert turn of this conversation:

I think it's not crazy at all to look at Russell through a Gobert starting point, and the limitations of Gobert absolutely pertain to why I don't expect Russell would be a tippy top candidate for best player of this era. Russell was smarter and more agile than Gobert, which would help mitigate some of the playoff issues Gobert has, but I do think that in this offense-dominated era, Russell's scoring limitations would hold him back.

We should not forget though that Gobert led a team to the best record in the league with him having easily the best +/- on the team. Frankly the only reason he wasn't given serious MVP consideration that year was likely the stink of his playoff issues, which is actually a really weird thing not just because in theory the playoffs shouldn't matter about a regular season award, but because the basketball populace really seem to have avoided realizing he did this and they did that.

Regardless of the context of this thread, Gobert really is a clear-cut Hall of Fame player in this era, and I think people need to really sit with that.

[Doctor MJ]

Regardless of the reason, Russell is being grossly overrated given the limitations that most people voting recognise he had. He belongs nowhere is a list of the top 10 basketball players of all-time.

Hmm.

Are you saying Russell doesn't belong in the top 10 GOAT conversation the way at least one of the peers he regularly outcompeted is because that other player would translate better to today's game?

Or

Do you just believe in general that no one from the first 70 years of a 130 year sport should be mentioned in a greatest of all time conversation?

I was under the impression that the latter was well established at your opinion, but the way you're making arguments here seems to indicate you have a problem with Russell considerably more than his contemporaries.

[One_and_Done]

Regardless of the reason, Russell is being grossly overrated given the limitations that most people voting recognise he had. He belongs nowhere is a list of the top 10 basketball players of all-time.

Hmm.

Are you saying Russell doesn't belong in the top 10 GOAT conversation the way at least one of the peers he regularly outcompeted is because that other player would translate better to today's game?

Or

Do you just believe in general that no one from the first 70 years of a 130 year sport should be mentioned in a greatest of all time conversation?

I was under the impression that the latter was well established at your opinion, but the way you're making arguments here seems to indicate you have a problem with Russell considerably more than his contemporaries.

There's truth in both statements, although I obvioisly wouldn't go as far as saying nobody from the past eras is an all-time great; I have Kareem in my top 3. The league Russell played in was terrible, but it's possible for a great player to transcend their trash competition. Russell fails to clear that bar because much of his success is a product of his era, as the majority of voters in this thread understand. If you transported him into today's league he wouldn't be an MVP calibre player. Kareem on the other hand clearly would be.

[One_and_Done]

A note on the interesting Gobert turn of this conversation:

I think it's not crazy at all to look at Russell through a Gobert starting point, and the limitations of Gobert absolutely pertain to why I don't expect Russell would be a tippy top candidate for best player of this era. Russell was smarter and more agile than Gobert, which would help mitigate some of the playoff issues Gobert has, but I do think that in this offense-dominated era, Russell's scoring limitations would hold him back.

We should not forget though that Gobert led a team to the best record in the league with him having easily the best +/- on the team. Frankly the only reason he wasn't given serious MVP consideration that year was likely the stink of his playoff issues, which is actually a really weird thing not just because in theory the playoffs shouldn't matter about a regular season award, but because the basketball populace really seem to have avoided realizing he did this and they did that.

Regardless of the context of this thread, Gobert really is a clear-cut Hall of Fame player in this era, and I think people need to really sit with that.

Peak Gobert is clearly a hall of famer, and a top 10-15 type player in the league at his peak. None of that negates anything that's being said here.

[70sFan]

Regardless of the reason, Russell is being grossly overrated given the limitations that most people voting recognise he had. He belongs nowhere is a list of the top 10 basketball players of all-time.

Hmm.

Are you saying Russell doesn't belong in the top 10 GOAT conversation the way at least one of the peers he regularly outcompeted is because that other player would translate better to today's game?

Or

Do you just believe in general that no one from the first 70 years of a 130 year sport should be mentioned in a greatest of all time conversation?

I was under the impression that the latter was well established at your opinion, but the way you're making arguments here seems to indicate you have a problem with Russell considerably more than his contemporaries.

There's truth in both statements, although I obvioisly wouldn't go as far as saying nobody from the past eras is an all-time great; I have Kareem in my top 3. The league Russell played in was terrible, but it's possible for a great player to transcend their trash competition. Russell fails to clear that bar because much of his success is a product of his era, as the majority of voters in this thread understand. If you transported him into today's league he wouldn't be an MVP calibre player. Kareem on the other hand clearly would be.

What's the threshold of transcending trash competition? Didn't you say previously that we can't assume that players can remain their skillset when they face trash competition? Kareem played against the same competition Russell did and he struggled against the 1960s players.

[One_and_Done]

Hmm.

Are you saying Russell doesn't belong in the top 10 GOAT conversation the way at least one of the peers he regularly outcompeted is because that other player would translate better to today's game?

Or

Do you just believe in general that no one from the first 70 years of a 130 year sport should be mentioned in a greatest of all time conversation?

I was under the impression that the latter was well established at your opinion, but the way you're making arguments here seems to indicate you have a problem with Russell considerably more than his contemporaries.

There's truth in both statements, although I obvioisly wouldn't go as far as saying nobody from the past eras is an all-time great; I have Kareem in my top 3. The league Russell played in was terrible, but it's possible for a great player to transcend their trash competition. Russell fails to clear that bar because much of his success is a product of his era, as the majority of voters in this thread understand. If you transported him into today's league he wouldn't be an MVP calibre player. Kareem on the other hand clearly would be.

What's the threshold of transcending trash competition? Didn't you say previously that we can't assume that players can remain their skillset when they face trash competition? Kareem played against the same competition Russell did and he struggled against the 1960s players.

Players get the skillset they had. The issue is when that skillset was only that good because of the bad league they were in. Cousy and Russell were above average passers for their position in the 50s & 60s, but whether that passing skillset would still be above average today is another matter.

[OhayoKD]

TS% doesn't say he's not a great rim roller,

It may not say that, but I do think it says he was so offensively limited that after putting him 4th in the Top 100, I think I've convinced myself he has to be behind Hakeem/Shaq/Duncan because his skillset would not allow him to surpass them (barely, maybe) in basically any era other than his own and they would almost definitely surpass him in later eras.

So are you planning to convince yourself that the next peaks project top 5 should start with SGA, Jokic, Lebron, Steph, and Giannis?

Or is this sudden disdain for era-relativity just something you're throwing in so you can get your favorites higher

It also seems pretty safe that the most valuable player ever would have been fine in the 70s considering the best data from anyone between Russell and Lebron comes from Bill Walton and the decade started with Wilt as basically just a defender being the 2nd best player in the league.

[70sFan]

There's truth in both statements, although I obvioisly wouldn't go as far as saying nobody from the past eras is an all-time great; I have Kareem in my top 3. The league Russell played in was terrible, but it's possible for a great player to transcend their trash competition. Russell fails to clear that bar because much of his success is a product of his era, as the majority of voters in this thread understand. If you transported him into today's league he wouldn't be an MVP calibre player. Kareem on the other hand clearly would be.

What's the threshold of transcending trash competition? Didn't you say previously that we can't assume that players can remain their skillset when they face trash competition? Kareem played against the same competition Russell did and he struggled against the 1960s players.

Players get the skillset they had. The issue is when that skillset was only that good because of the bad league they were in. Cousy and Russell were above average passers for their position in the 50s & 60s, but whether that passing skillset would still be above average today is another matter.

Kareem was a great scorer in the 1970s and 1980s but whether that passing skillset would be still above average today is another matter.

You didn't answer my question.

[One_and_Done]

I did answer it. There is no mathematical test to work out how good someone is. A good starting point might be to ask what was the quality of the league they played in, and if you transported them to today's league how would they do. I don't mind them getting modern medical care and diet, or getting an offseason to learn the new rules of the league, but giving them a new skillset they never had is just too speculative. Once you do that, you're entering into imaginary players who never existed like 3pt shooting Shaq or healthy Walton and Len Bias.

[70sFan]

I did answer it. There is no mathematical test to work out how good someone is. A good starting point might be to ask what was the quality of the league they played in, and if you transported them to today's league how would they do. I don't mind them getting modern medical care and diet, or getting an offseason to learn the new rules of the league, but giving them a new skillset they never had is just too speculative. Once you do that, you're entering into imaginary players who never existed like 3pt shooting Shaq or healthy Walton and Len Bias.

I don't ask for mathematical formula, I want to know how you decide that Kareem skills tested against horrible competition would translate, but Russell's won't.

You said we can't say if Russell skills would translate because he played against horrible competition. Kareem also tested his skills against horrible competition, how can you know that they would translate to modern game.

[One_and_Done]

I did answer it. There is no mathematical test to work out how good someone is. A good starting point might be to ask what was the quality of the league they played in, and if you transported them to today's league how would they do. I don't mind them getting modern medical care and diet, or getting an offseason to learn the new rules of the league, but giving them a new skillset they never had is just too speculative. Once you do that, you're entering into imaginary players who never existed like 3pt shooting Shaq or healthy Walton and Len Bias.

I don't ask for mathematical formula, I want to know how you decide that Kareem skills tested against horrible competition would translate, but Russell's won't.

You said we can't say if Russell skills would translate because he played against horrible competition. Kareem also tested his skills against horrible competition, how can you know that they would translate to modern game.

You use common sense and reason, in an intelligent exchange of ideas. If you want to find out why people think Kareem would thrive today I suggest you start a thread about it.

[70sFan]

I did answer it. There is no mathematical test to work out how good someone is. A good starting point might be to ask what was the quality of the league they played in, and if you transported them to today's league how would they do. I don't mind them getting modern medical care and diet, or getting an offseason to learn the new rules of the league, but giving them a new skillset they never had is just too speculative. Once you do that, you're entering into imaginary players who never existed like 3pt shooting Shaq or healthy Walton and Len Bias.

I don't ask for mathematical formula, I want to know how you decide that Kareem skills tested against horrible competition would translate, but Russell's won't.

You said we can't say if Russell skills would translate because he played against horrible competition. Kareem also tested his skills against horrible competition, how can you know that they would translate to modern game.

You use common sense and reason, in an intelligent exchange of ideas. If you want to find out why people think Kareem would thrive today I suggest you start a thread about it.

Doctor MJ and tsherkin used common sense. You didn't respect their opinions.

[Ol Roy]

I did answer it. There is no mathematical test to work out how good someone is. A good starting point might be to ask what was the quality of the league they played in, and if you transported them to today's league how would they do. I don't mind them getting modern medical care and diet, or getting an offseason to learn the new rules of the league, but giving them a new skillset they never had is just too speculative. Once you do that, you're entering into imaginary players who never existed like 3pt shooting Shaq or healthy Walton and Len Bias.

I don't ask for mathematical formula, I want to know how you decide that Kareem skills tested against horrible competition would translate, but Russell's won't.

You said we can't say if Russell skills would translate because he played against horrible competition. Kareem also tested his skills against horrible competition, how can you know that they would translate to modern game.

You use common sense and reason, in an intelligent exchange of ideas. If you want to find out why people think Kareem would thrive today I suggest you start a thread about it.

When an idea about era translation jives with your opinion, it's common sense and reason. When something conflicts with it, it's just too speculative. You speak as an authority despite not being one, and act as if your subjective opinions and dividing lines (which you can't delineate or explain) are eternal truths. Ever heard of epistemological humility?

Let's cut through all the intellectual dishonesty. We know you like Kareem and Duncan. We know you dislike Jordan, Russell, and Kobe. Why you feel a responsibility to strictly control narratives about these players, I have no idea. But you approach these discussions like an attorney as opposed to a scientist, more interested in winning the debate rather than reaching the truth.

It's unfortunate because it always derails what should be interesting threads.

[One_and_Done]

Everybody here is an anonymous forum poster, and all have an equal right to their own views. Mine just aren't aligned with yours, and in this particular case the majority agrees with me.

[Jaivl]

Everybody here is an anonymous forum poster, and all have an equal right to their own views. Mine just aren't aligned with yours, and in this particular case the majority agrees with me.

"I'd take Kevin Garnett over Bill Russell in 2025" =/= "Bill Russell is trash"

[Doctor MJ]

Everybody here is an anonymous forum poster, and all have an equal right to their own views. Mine just aren't aligned with yours, and in this particular case the majority agrees with me.

"I'd take Kevin Garnett over Bill Russell in 2025" =/= "Bill Russell is trash"

Right, I voted Garnett for this poll but have Russell as my GOAT and clearly have not been agreeing with O&D here.

Further, the language O&D has used ("caveman") has implied that Russell wouldn't be able to hack it all today...but then we come to learn that O&D has no real issue comparing Russell to Gobert who is a HOF in today's game.

If we just use calm, non-judgmental language to try to figure out why people believe what they believe, we oftentimes realize that we don't disagree on as much as we thought.

Meanwhile, if we use charged rhetoric, we think we disagree more than we do and we tend to end up disliking each other.